HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

OT: Did The AWG Global Warming Theory Take a Hit?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-20-2009, 02:46 PM
  #26
CorpseFX
Registered User
 
CorpseFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 7,645
vCash: 872
global warming or not - civilization isnt sustainable.

CorpseFX is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:46 PM
  #27
badberry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 75
vCash: 500
Because any scientist who ever supported climate change theory works at this one university...

Besides, reading through the "damning" excerpts I don't see anything jumping out at me as overtly bad. Seems more like debate about different ways to analyze data..you know, as scientists do. Nowhere does anyone say anything about making false data. The author of that article is attempting to show quotes out of context that appear condemning but really say nothing without knowing what they are talking about.

I really don't get this conspiracy theory. What do people have to gain by advancing climate change falsely? I mean, emitting tons of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere can't be doing anything good for the planet, so I don't see why trying to come up with cleaner energy is a bad thing, even if the earth is not "warming" as much as thought.

badberry is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:50 PM
  #28
OmegaTheory
Registered User
 
OmegaTheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Paper Street
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 3,710
vCash: 500
Man this is too funny.

OmegaTheory is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:50 PM
  #29
SlowFreshOil*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
Where's the face in the palm smile when you need it. An extra large one too.
The BBC has now picked it up. Good enough for some of you?

SlowFreshOil* is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:51 PM
  #30
Philly85
Moody'
 
Philly85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,606
vCash: 500
Doesn't mean that humanity and capitalist Western society as a whole should look at this and figure, "OKAY, FULL STEAM AHEAD NOW BOYS, IT'S ALL ********".

The planet is still being ravaged, bottom line, even if Global warming isn't as bad as originally thought.

Maybe it was a "good lie" or a "white lie" in the sense they knew the majority of people wouldn't buy it, but if they persisted enough and presented as many facts (real or fake) as they could, that maybe citizens across the globe would take notice, keep it in the back of their mind and take the initiative to be a little more conscious of the carbon footprint they're leaving on the world.

There is nothing wrong with slowly down, leveling this off a bit and being more environmentally friendly and aware, global warming "conspiracy" or not.

Philly85 is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:52 PM
  #31
Cloned
Sexy Genesis
 
Cloned's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowFreshOil View Post
You're missing the point. The VERY scientists that have been ramming AWG global warming down our throats have been fudging their data. It's big because they've refused to disclose their data and now, it's been exposed (along with their emails), as a lie.
You're missing my point. It doesn't matter. None of this invalidates the theory. It might embarass and discredit the scientists involved, if it's true, but that doesn't mean the theory is discredited. There are "name" scientists on both sides but the bulk of the research is being done by "grassroots" people (grad students, less famous researchers) who won't seek to "fudge" the data one way or another. And that research still shows contradictory results the last time I checked.

__________________

Sig AND X-mas avatar courtesy of The Nemesis

"Pull yourself together!" - Solid Snake to Otacon, multiple times in the series
Cloned is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:52 PM
  #32
CorpseFX
Registered User
 
CorpseFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 7,645
vCash: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by badberry View Post
Because any scientist who ever supported climate change theory works at this one university...
ditto.
the poster is acting like this one school is the be-all-end-all for climate change research which makes it about as lame as the article. and the fact that people who take climate change as the ONLY critical ecological question are complete idiots.

CorpseFX is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:54 PM
  #33
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowFreshOil View Post
You're missing the point. The VERY scientists that have been ramming AWG global warming down our throats have been fudging their data. It's big because they've refused to disclose their data and now, it's been exposed (along with their emails), as a lie.
That is, of course, IF all the information 'hacked' proves to be true. In the blog itself, it says that we can't know right now since nothing has been proven either way.

That said, I'll be interested to see how this turns out. I've never really bought into the whole global warming thing so it's catching my curiosity for sure.

Mentallydull is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:54 PM
  #34
hodge7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Rutland, VT
Country: United States
Posts: 157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkph View Post
People who talk about global warming as if they know the truth have serious problems. Nobody knows.
Well, looking at science for Truth is the first problem. Scientists are really uncomfortable with that word because it's, well, not in the interest of science to deal with the Truth.

Science takes a look a facts. We explain those facts with a theory. For example, out elders looked at falling objects near the surface of the earth (neglecting air resistance) and saw that they all seem to accelerate at the same rate. This and a whole bunch of other facts led to the theory of Universal Gravitation by Mr. Newton. Now, we still teach this in high school, but it's really not correct. Others came along afterward and refined gravitation to a more precise theory. However, we still use Newton's version to predict outcomes and explain facts, but it's not the Truth.

Science, by nature, always leaves doubt because there may be a better theory out there. I caution you in looking for Truth in science, but please look at the facts and see if the theory does a good job at explaining those facts. If it does, then it's a good theory.

Not surprisingly, most of us don't have the skills to analyze the theories on why the globe is warming, so we're at the mercy of others. It's too bad that the people who are most vocal about these issues are just as ignorant as we are. Maybe we should listen to what the scientific community is telling us but always with a skeptical ear. After all, science is not error free, but it's done a **** good job for us so far.

hodge7 is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:55 PM
  #35
SlowFreshOil*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by badberry View Post
Because any scientist who ever supported climate change theory works at this one university...

Besides, reading through the "damning" excerpts I don't see anything jumping out at me as overtly bad. Seems more like debate about different ways to analyze data..you know, as scientists do. Nowhere does anyone say anything about making false data. The author of that article is attempting to show quotes out of context that appear condemning but really say nothing without knowing what they are talking about.

I really don't get this conspiracy theory. What do people have to gain by advancing climate change falsely? I mean, emitting tons of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere can't be doing anything good for the planet, so I don't see why trying to come up with cleaner energy is a bad thing, even if the earth is not "warming" as much as thought.
You obviously didn't even read ANY OF THE LINKS... From one of the emails:
Quote:
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.
It's right in their emails. Have a look at EVERYTHING.

SlowFreshOil* is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:57 PM
  #36
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by badberry View Post
Because any scientist who ever supported climate change theory works at this one university...

Besides, reading through the "damning" excerpts I don't see anything jumping out at me as overtly bad. Seems more like debate about different ways to analyze data..you know, as scientists do. Nowhere does anyone say anything about making false data. The author of that article is attempting to show quotes out of context that appear condemning but really say nothing without knowing what they are talking about.

I really don't get this conspiracy theory. What do people have to gain by advancing climate change falsely? I mean, emitting tons of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere can't be doing anything good for the planet, so I don't see why trying to come up with cleaner energy is a bad thing, even if the earth is not "warming" as much as thought.
Other than money you mean?

Mentallydull is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 02:59 PM
  #37
The Whizz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
And yeah... I did some minimal research and it looks like much of this is seriously taken out of context.

The part about
"private doubts about whether the world is really heating up"

Well, the guy was referring to this article he wrote:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...ics09final.pdf


The guy was just commenting on how its a shame we don't have better ways to detect global warming. He is a firm global warming believer. The point is there are plenty of ways increased radiative forcing interacts with the earth... energy used to melt icecaps, stored in the ocean, evaporated, etc.

One thing that annoys me is that people don't seem to understand that climate means average weather over decades (usually 20 or 30 years). Year to year variability is normal.

Seriously, read at least the first page of his article. Its actually quite interesting and explains the quote.

I have strong suspicions the rest of the e-mails have been taken out of context similarly.

The Whizz is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:03 PM
  #38
the tikk
Registered User
 
the tikk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowFreshOil View Post
The BBC has now picked it up. Good enough for some of you?
I can't find it anywhere on the BBC news site. Do you have a link?

the tikk is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:05 PM
  #39
The Whizz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

The Whizz is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:06 PM
  #40
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the tikk View Post
I can't find it anywhere on the BBC news site. Do you have a link?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

Mentallydull is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:06 PM
  #41
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Whay a dumb & misleading thread title.
And the OP reads just a little too much into it (I wonder why that is).
Just goes to show, if you want something to say something, youll somehow rationalize a way.
I think this thread had been suitably discredited.

Sammy* is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:07 PM
  #42
Giant Moo
Registered User
 
Giant Moo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the tikk View Post
I can't find it anywhere on the BBC news site. Do you have a link?
The BBC confirmed the unauthorized access. Period. There's nothing in that story that tells us anything the OP is insisting is true (and obviously desperately needs it to be true).

Giant Moo is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:07 PM
  #43
badberry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 75
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowFreshOil View Post
You obviously didn't even read ANY OF THE LINKS... From one of the emails:


It's right in their emails. Have a look at EVERYTHING.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

"No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."

Do you understand this stuff? Neither do I. But I don't think you can claim to know what they are referring to in these emails. Context is important.

badberry is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:08 PM
  #44
theranfordflop
Registered User
 
theranfordflop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,360
vCash: 500
Hahaha! WHAM! What a HIT!

theranfordflop is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:08 PM
  #45
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
Whay a dumb & misleading thread title.
And the OP reads just a little too much into it (I wonder why that is).
Just goes to show, if you want something to say something, youll somehow rationalize a way.
I think this thread had been suitably discredited.
I'm not a huge fan of the thread title but I don't think you can really discredit the thread since it's a discussion on the events of what happened...

Mentallydull is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:10 PM
  #46
Giant Moo
Registered User
 
Giant Moo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Replace "evolution" for "global warming" and this thread is starting to look like one on Fark. With the OP playing the part of Bevets.

Giant Moo is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:10 PM
  #47
SlowFreshOil*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I'm not a huge fan of the thread title but I don't think you can really discredit the thread since it's a discussion on the events of what happened...
Changed the thread title...

SlowFreshOil* is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:11 PM
  #48
Vagabond
Registered User
 
Vagabond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,111
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Vagabond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
I did link it on the first page in this thread as well.. some people have missed it.

Vagabond is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:12 PM
  #49
SlowFreshOil*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South
Posts: 2,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giant Moo View Post
Replace "evolution" for "global warming" and this thread is starting to look like one on Fark. With the OP playing the part of Bevets.
What's your problem with me? I take it you have nothing better to do than stroke DSF's ego and be a troll?

Keep crying... this shouldn't be a thread, where's the mod... whaa, whaaa, whaaaa!

You haven't brought a single thing to the discussion.

SlowFreshOil* is offline  
Old
11-20-2009, 03:12 PM
  #50
gonzo11
Give the dog a bone
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 47,638
vCash: 500
Yadda yaddda yadda

I have a few friends who work for the UN and they call med eco scientist and they have spent lots of time at the ice caps and they have studdied how their melting has increased drastically in the last 30 years

gonzo11 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.