CLIMATEGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Page 3
Old 11-24-2009, 04:45 PM   #41 (permalink)
thinking Stephen Harper has got to go.

Senior Member
 
lonewolfpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 1,243
Representing:
Default

That is quite offensive, where in my post did I say to cull population?
lonewolfpoet is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 04:57 PM   #42 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by •LX• View Post
The environment recovered extremely well after the black plague when millions of people died, and immediately went into decline once the disease was eradicated.

But of course it's just about natural cycles.
My statement was not made in sarcasm.

I believe we are confusing 2 different things. I believe "climate change" is not effected by humans (much), I believe the environment defiantly is.... logging, (even though when done right is a renewable resource) rainforests etc...is defiantly effected by humans and culling the population would reduce the need for the resources we need from areas.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 05:07 PM   #43 (permalink)
thinking Stephen Harper has got to go.

Senior Member
 
lonewolfpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 1,243
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
My statement was not made in sarcasm.

I believe we are confusing 2 different things. I believe "climate change" is not effected by humans (much), I believe the environment defiantly is.... logging, (even though when done right is a renewable resource) rainforests etc...is defiantly effected by humans and culling the population would reduce the need for the resources we need from areas.
Okay, sorry thought you were inferring that I was advocating culling the population. I think it is a concern though especially when the biggest population explosions are occuring in some of the poorer regions of the world. Also yes forestry is renewable if you are treeplanting. The destruction of the Amazon rainforest has no treeplanting and is in some instances being done by farmers for them to grow more crops. Unfortunately after a couple of seasons the rich soil left by the rain forest becomes degraded and eroded and becomes extremely poor for even farmland.
lonewolfpoet is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 05:09 PM   #44 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,244
Representing:
Default

I didn't think it was sarcasm, and I don't personally see a distinction between environmental health and climate change. It's pretty clear that human beings pose a threat to healthy biospheres everywhere, and have for an extremely long time, with industrialization, post-black death, ratcheting up the damage and throwing natural cycles out of balance.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 05:14 PM   #45 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by •LX• View Post
I didn't think it was sarcasm, and I don't personally see a distinction between environmental health and climate change. It's pretty clear that human beings pose a threat to healthy biospheres everywhere, and have for an extremely long time, with industrialization, post-black death, ratcheting up the damage and throwing natural cycles out of balance.

That is a fine opinion, but there is no scientific evidence to support it.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 05:16 PM   #46 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,244
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
That is a fine opinion, but there is no scientific evidence to support it.
Yeah - there is actually plenty of it. I'm not just making shit up. I'll leave that to big oil.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 05:17 PM   #47 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by •LX• View Post
Yeah - there is actually plenty of it. I'm not just making shit up. I'll leave that to big oil.
I will patiently await it..... and nothing from the CRC or Nasa please...they fudge their numbers.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 05:25 PM   #48 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,244
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
I will patiently await it..... and nothing from the CRC or Nasa please...they fudge their numbers.
Yeah - I'll be sure to give you information that you can only agree with.

I'm smart enough to know that nothing is going to change your mind, and you should know that the National Post is not going to be enough to make me see how wrong science has been. And it simply doesn't matter. My main concern is that those who need to make the big decisions - and that ain't us - will have information that is as truthful as possible. And I can't say I'm overly hopeful about that possibility. Even so, the need to look beyond short-term political gains and losses will likely hamper any good decision-making.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 06:30 PM   #49 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,071
Representing:
Default

Okay, I took a look at the National Post (NP) article and now I am going to respond to some of it. In another post, I am going to respond to some of those supposed "hacked" emails.

I am going to go through the NP article in sections. An important thing to remember with climate change or global warming is that it is about overall long term trends. From year to year, sudden events can have an affect on temperature, like a volcanic erruption, and El Nino, La Nina...etc...but if the overall trend is goin up rapidly over decades, that indicates something is occuring.

First off:
Quote:
Among true believers, holding on to that deep faith in the scientific process must be something of a strain, not unlike holding on to the conviction that Moses actually did part the Red Sea. That's some trick! Before this past weekend, doubts about the foundations of climate science were already being seriously raised by climate observers who noted, among other anomalies, that average global temperatures are no higher than they were in 1998 and may get cooler in coming years? If the world is getting hotter, how come it's not getting hotter?
The section I bolded is sloppy journalism. Only the dumb global warming deniers are sticking to the 1998 story. In order to make their point, the National Post is counting on the scientific illiteracy of its readers here. The "global warming stopped in 1998" isn't even used by most deniers anymore, because it's just so easy to debunk. This video demonstrates just how stupid the National post is.

Link:

Party like it is 1998

Quote:
Other observations are also feeding public skepticism of the idea that man-made global warming is a risk to planetary ecosystems and the future of human life on Earth. One could fill pages with evidence either of global warming's manifest absence from our lives or its failure to show up on schedule or as expected. Where are the hurricanes, the sea level increases, the floods in Europe, the steady signs of warming? Fewer people believe the hype, one of the main reasons politicians heading to the Copenhagen are shying away from major commitments.
Yes, some things about global warming have been overblown. But predicting the future is not easy. The main thing is that the overall trend had been towards warming. The fact that the NP is suggesting it has not is so disingenuous. Again, short term events like El Nino's and La Nina's can lead to variability from year to year, so you can't expect steady signs of warming EVERY year. It doesn't work that way. The NP is attacking something most honest climatologists would not even say.

Quote:
The CRU is the prime source of global temperature data, and the emails raise serious issues about some of the methods and practices of the leading figures in the official science of global warming.

Climate skeptics have swarmed the email cache and are trying to turn it into evidence of science skulduggery. There is evidence, they say, of science fraud that should serve to discredit the work of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Defenders of the establishment claim the emails are much ado about not much, beyond revealing routine inside-science debates and conflicts. A few of the key emails from the massive collection are reproduced elsewhere on this page, cherry-picked from more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents that are now readily available to the curious in the Internet.
Notice how the NP is putting all the claims of science fraud on the skeptics. The NP is careful not to suggest they think it is true. They just lead their readers to come to that conclusion with the inclusion of the other slanted language in earlier parts of the article, like the 1998 question about why it's not getting hotter, which of course is bullshit, since it did get hotter.

Also, notice how they cherry picked a few out of thousands? None of the emails they provided (which I will get to later) are really a smoking gun that debunks global warming. And when they provide excerpts, they only provide a few sentences, if that. If these emails were so damaging, why is that the best they can do? Out of thousands of emails and documents, is that really the best evidence they've got? Even the article admits the emails are not a smoking gun, yet they are still trying to inflate the story. I'm not saying don't report this, but why surround it with distorted facts, like the comments about weather since 1998.

Quote:
One of the CRU emails is from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado and a leading member of the IPCC science team. Last month, in a letter to Michael Mann, the inventor of the "hockey stick" graph, he asked: "Where the heck is global warming?" It's freezing in Colorado, he said, and "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."

It could be more than a travesty if, over the next few years, global warming doesn't make a major appearance in the world's climate. If world temperatures -- which are now no hotter than they were in 1998 -- stay low for the next five to 10 years, it suggests a major gap in climate models that support global warming theory. The BBC's science-based climate blogger recently summarized the looming dilemma. Under long-range climate model simulations of man-made global warming, it is supposedly impossible for there to be no warming over a 15-year period. Since 10 years have passed, the next five are crucial. If temperatures rise to above 1998 levels, the BBC's Paul Hudson writes, "then climate skeptics will have nowhere to hide." But if in the next few years temperatures "do not exceed 1998 temperature levels, then this could cause big questions to be asked."
First off, the Trentberth comment is lacking a lot of context. We don't know if he was talking about a short term global trend or a local anomoly he couldn't explain. If you talked to people in Ontario this summer, they'd tell you Global Warming wasn't happening. This summer was cold in Ontario, but it was fucking hot in Vancouver. Like scorching hot in Vancouver. It was also hot on the Prairies. The point is, just like you can have annual variability that does not debunk the long term warming trend, you can have local variability that does not challenge the long term trend. There can be local circumstances that lead to temp change in a small area. It was hot most places this summer, but Ontario was an exception.

The second paragraph is just more bullshit. And it's that bullshit that makes me question the integrity of the NP and the information in the rest of the article. This is just misleading. The NP is suggesting that the past decade has not seen a year as hot as 1998, and that the next five to ten years are crucial in determining if a warming trend is really occuring. 2005 was warmer than 1998. We've already passed 1998 temps.

Quote:
Such big questions are already being asked at the highest scientific levels. The official UN science community is currently totally at a loss to understand, let alone explain, much of anything beyond their 100-year prediction of rising temperatures brought on by increases in carbon emissions. They have the big picture, but they have none of the little pictures of what will happen in five years or 10 years or even three or four decades. Mojib Latif, of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel University, outlined the gaps in decadal prediction at a conference in September.

Two or three decades of "cooling" may well happen, said Prof. Latif, referring to a chart that shows temperatures below current levels as late as 2030. He also showed that hurricanes have not increased in frequency, there is no evidence so far of rising sea levels, key rainfall measures show no trend linked to global warming, and climate models can be off by as much as 10 degrees locally.
Now this is the funniest and most depressing part of the article. Latif's speech at the Genova conference actually related to observations on climate change, the media, and misinterpretation. This is funny and depressing because Latif was talking about the need for climatologists to try and be as honest as possible and the need for them to convey a better understanding of what climate change entails, so that the media will better understand the issue and not accuse climatologitsts of lying. Latif was trying to be honest about the fact that there are decadal fluctuations, even though the overall trend moves upwards. Sure, the temp may drop back down, but then it marches back up. He was pressing for transparency but also the need to get the media to understand that global warming is not about temp increases each year. What did the National Post do? They totally took his comments out of context, which was the same thing he was talking about trying to avoid. Kind of ironic. Listen to what Latif had to say in this video of his speech. Also notice how the interview of a journalist spinning his speech is another guy from the National Post....more like National Poop.

Link:

Birth of a climate crock


Quote:
Another new paper by NCAR's James Hurrell and others in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reviews the "profound gaps," "compromises," "errors" and general failures and inadequacies in existing climate models. He calls for massive increases in computer power to resolve the issues. How much power? Scientists at the World Climate Conference in September, where the science gaps were explored, endorsed an earlier recommendation. "There is a compelling need for dedicated computational facilities that are 1,000 times to 10,000 times more powerful than available today."
What types of gaps? What types of errors? What types of compromises? Without the full context this really tells you nothing. If he is talking about the predictive power of models, that doesn't change the fact that the recent long term trend has been towards warming. It just means we can't say for certain where we'll be in 50 years. Just like how the Latif quote was misleading. Climatologists have admitted they can't accurately predict everything about future trends. This really isn't anything new or groundbreaking, and it doesn't challenge the substantial evidence supporting climate change.

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 11-24-2009 at 06:39 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 07:04 PM   #50 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,071
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
I will patiently await it..... and nothing from the CRC or Nasa please...they fudge their numbers.
Dude, seriously? Replace "NASA" with "NIST" and you'd sound just like the "truther" guys who annoy you.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 08:04 PM   #51 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,244
Representing:
Default

Let's see, the National Post is going under, and Big Oil has loads of money to buy scientists, spread misinformation, and maybe throw some money at a failing newspaper. Seems like a scenario a little more feasible than suggesting that the rest of the rags in town are lefty. I mean they look like they are carried along by corporate interests themselves, but perhaps not quite so desperate as to be bought outright.

Then again they might believe all this. It was the NP that came out with editorials suggesting that palestinians do not exist. Facts don't always seem to matter there. I'll go with the scientific journals that are peer reviewed. Not that it matters, because unless some political process is put in place across the board, effecting all nations, then big oil wins. "Democracy" might end up biting us in the ass hard.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 08:35 PM   #52 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

ArmChair I am going to address your post when I have the time to properly do it.

Guys this isnt the National Post heading this thing up, it isnt exclusively their story. I am not doubting the papers shittyness or viability LX, just the first place I found the story in my search, me thinks it will be everywhere soon.

ArmChair the NP didn't select the excerpts the hacker did that found them all. The rest of it is slowly coming out, even involving some of the Obama administration.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 08:37 PM   #53 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmChairGM View Post
Dude, seriously? Replace "NASA" with "NIST" and you'd sound just like the "truther" guys who annoy you.
NASA and the CRC are the ones implicated in this current scandal which is why I didn't want them referenced, no general offense to NASA.
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 09:14 PM   #54 (permalink)
LX
synapse jelly

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,244
Representing:
Default

It sounds very fishy. We'll see.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 01:25 AM   #55 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,071
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
ArmChair I am going to address your post when I have the time to properly do it.

Guys this isnt the National Post heading this thing up, it isnt exclusively their story. I am not doubting the papers shittyness or viability LX, just the first place I found the story in my search, me thinks it will be everywhere soon.

ArmChair the NP didn't select the excerpts the hacker did that found them all. The rest of it is slowly coming out, even involving some of the Obama administration.
Okay, Benzo, if the NP didn't select the excerpts, then I stand corrected on that point. I will read what you have to say and consider your points when you get the chance to respond.

Oh, and regarding NASA, I am familiar with them making data entry mistakes in the past. That Steve McIntyre fellow you mentioned even brought one of them to light earlier this year. I remember something to do with the temperature in Russia last fall getting misrepresented. I think they plotted the temp for September 2008 as the temp for October 2008, which obviously made things look warmer than October 2007. NASA was quick to admit the error and correct it. It wasn't something intentional. Anyways, I am actually interested now to see how this current story plays out in the news.

But even if the National Post isn't the only outlet running the story, that doesn't change the fact that the National Post was misleading in its article. This is part of what I was refering to in my first post. There are many mistakes, whether they be intentional or not, happening on both sides of the coverage, which only further confuses people and leads them to distrust the information put out on this issue.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 02:35 AM   #56 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,083
Representing:
Default

I am of the opinion that the evidence for and against anthropogenic climate change is conflicted. What really concerns me is the apparent manipulation and prevention of scientific inquiry, particularly when interfering with the peer-review process.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 10:07 AM   #57 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

bah.

too much babble.

fact - people are killing tree's faster than we are growing um. No oxygen.
fact - population growth is still on an exponential curve, anyone who has studied stats know what the inevitable conclusion to a population curve is.

fact - a large percentage of the eaths oxygen comes from the ocean. Unbalanced polution and disruption od ecosystems is causing massive depletions in this oceanic algea source.

More people, less oxygen, exponential growth curve = One hell of a massive drop in Human population.

Now that can be good or bad, just depends upon when it happens I suppose.

So say what ya want. Quote what ya want, live how ya want. Facts are pretty easy to see, and calculus aint hard science, you learn population curves in first year university. The rest is political agenda bullshit.

I'm sad for you guys that you are in a situation where you, who are innocent, are left to argue. We all deserve a bit more than that. All of us.
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 10:09 AM   #58 (permalink)
a dick

Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,151
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
Quote:
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

Quote:
Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
Quote:
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 12:19 PM   #59 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,071
Representing:
Default

Apollo,

The solar activity has been decreasing since the 1980s yet the temperature continues to go up. The same argument about solar activity was put forward in the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and it was debunked. Seriously, the solar activity has already dropped off quite a bit over the past 30 years and the temp still keeps rapidly going up. If you graphed solar activity since the 1980s and then plotted the earth's temperature on the same graph the lines would diverge drastically.

I checked out the Abdussamatov stuff on the National Geographic site. Your quotes are leaving out what some other people had to say.

I mean, the other scientists think he is a out to lunch. Adbussamatov claims greenhouse gasses have little influence on the Earth's climate, yet that's just absolutely adsurd. Without the greenhouse effect (in it's natural form) there would be little if any life on Earth. He seems like a bit of quack. But more important is the fact that his claims are not supported by empirical observation or theory. We've seen a decrease in Solar activity since the 1980s and the temps keep going up rapidly. No way around that. Furthermore, if the planet was heating up due to solar activity and not greenhouse gas, the planet would be heating up more at the equator, yet we see greater increases near the poles. There are lots of problems with Adbussamatov's claims.

In my next post, I'll link a video that shows what I'm talking about in a graph. You can see the graph in the last minute of the video.

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 11-25-2009 at 12:30 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 12:31 PM   #60 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,071
Representing:
Default

Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24