CLIMATEGATE!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Page 7
Old 12-08-2009, 07:35 PM   #121 (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: 10,467
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
Al Gore got the man caused climate change wheels really spinning and he's made over a $100M off of it so cry me a river. Facts are facts and those boys in the UK cooked the books.


Scientists say it does alter the theory too though. Those scientists haven't been caught with their pants down.

1 - Al Gore is a douche. I already said that in an ealier post. If anyone accepts global warming just because of Al Gore, then they are being dumb. They should be listening to the evidence presented. Quoting the Saudi negotiator is just as dumb as using Al Gore, though.

2 - Some scientists may say it alters the theory. But are you paying attention to language Apollo? "Altering" a theory is different than dismissing it and debunking it. And, that's really nothing all that new. Again, another point that I've made at least 2 times, is that there are disagreements over ASPECTS of global warming/climate change. There were disagreements over CERTAIN ASPECTS of the theory before the emails were ever leaked. But none of this means that global warming has been debunked or that it isn't happening.

I love how you called Dr. Pilmer a famous scientist. Ugh.

I'm busy watching the game. All for now.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 06:30 AM   #122 (permalink)
a dick

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

See, the thing is that its just a theory. Its not proven. There could be many non-egotisitcal reasons for a change. Moving on, accepting that the planet is getting warmer but its not caused by man's own doing essentially is altering the theory. I am telling you that these emails go a long way to casting great doubt on the credibility of some of the most influential leaders of man caused global warming theory. They've been caught red handed.

Many people know who Pilmer is. Is that not the definition of famous?

Edit: Oh and here's another though. Background history should not discredit a person's comments if they are based on factual information. Opinion is always going to be driven by biases, there is no way around it, it's opinion. If its supported by facts then it should not just be disregarded no matter if they have dealings with big oil. If court cases were decided based on the judge's opinion of the peopl testifying then this society would be a very sad place. Its a good thing the courts stick to the facts.

Cap and trade won't even greatly affect big oil, it will affect us, the consumer. You think big oil is going to take a hit? No, they're going to jack up the prices.

Last edited by Apollo; 12-09-2009 at 09:59 AM.
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 09:56 AM   #123 (permalink)
a dick

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

Quote:
Researcher Reportedly Threatens to Sue NASA Over Climate Data

FOXNews.com

A U.S. scholar is threatening to sue NASA to compel the release of climate change data, saying he suspects the agency has manipulated research like a university research center in Britain is accused of doing. A U.S. scholar is threatening to sue NASA to compel the release of climate change data, saying he suspects the agency has manipulated research just like a university research center in Britain is accused of doing.

The Washington Times reported Thursday that Christopher Horner, a fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has given NASA until the end of the year to grant his two-year-old Freedom of Information Act request for research detailing NASA's climate data and explaining why the agency has altered its own figures.

He's referring to calculations that first showed 1998, then 1934, then 1998 and 2006 as the hottest years on record.

The threat comes after leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit showed scientists appearing to manipulate climate data. The director of the unit has stepped down while an investigation is underway.

Horner said he suspects NASA's information is "highly damaging."

But White House scientists defended the science behind global warming on Capitol Hill Wednesday. A NASA spokesman told the Times the agency is collecting information to respond to Horner's request.
FOXNews.com - Researcher Reportedly Threatens to Sue NASA Over Climate Data
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 02:03 PM   #124 (permalink)
LX
effin' ineffable

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,536
Representing:
Default

So what is the point of disputing whether this thing is man-made or not exactly? Are the deniers saying that CO2 does not in fact trap heat? Or are they saying that millions of tons are not spilled into the atmosphere? Or is it just that it's not being pumped up there at a rate that should be found to be alarming in any way? All I'm hearing is a lot of conspiratorial and ideological mumbo jumbo about shit that is pretty plain and clear. Just what exactly is being denied? Because if it's the ultimate perfection of Al Gore or science or the environmental movement that needs to be called out, call me a denier as well. But if you want to suggest that means fuck all then count me out. Because it doesn't change the facts. CO2 traps heat. We pump eons worth of the stuff into the atmosphere, and look to do so at an incredibly accelerating rate.
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 02:18 PM   #125 (permalink)
I believe in Masai

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,052
Representing:
Default

exactly lx.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 05:00 PM   #126 (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: 10,467
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
See, the thing is that its just a theory. Its not proven. There could be many non-egotisitcal reasons for a change. Moving on, accepting that the planet is getting warmer but its not caused by man's own doing essentially is altering the theory. I am telling you that these emails go a long way to casting great doubt on the credibility of some of the most influential leaders of man caused global warming theory. They've been caught red handed.

Many people know who Pilmer is. Is that not the definition of famous?

Edit: Oh and here's another though. Background history should not discredit a person's comments if they are based on factual information. Opinion is always going to be driven by biases, there is no way around it, it's opinion. If its supported by facts then it should not just be disregarded no matter if they have dealings with big oil. If court cases were decided based on the judge's opinion of the peopl testifying then this society would be a very sad place. Its a good thing the courts stick to the facts.

Cap and trade won't even greatly affect big oil, it will affect us, the consumer. You think big oil is going to take a hit? No, they're going to jack up the prices.
1 - There is a difference between saying that humans are not the cause of global warming/climate change and saying that humans are the cause but it's not significant enough to worry about. It seems like you're in the first camp: the groop that thinks man is not affecting climate and global temperatures through the emission of green house gases. If you are one of those people, then you're so out of touch that any conversation is pointless.

LX's post really gets to the heart of this.

I've heard many smart people say they think the "doom and gloom" is exagerated, but even they would never be so ignorant as to suggest that there is no greenhouse gas effect taking place. I mean, you can try and contest the degree of the current situation and the potential future problems, but to suggest that man is not playing a role is....
:facepalm:

2 - I agree that background information should not be the reason a person's views are completely dismissed. I already said that people shoud listen to evidence rather than Al Gore. Like Dr. Plimer, Dr. Ball and the lead negotiator for Saudi Arabia make shitty arguments. We were pointing out the fact that Dr. Ball is connected to "Big Oil" as evidence of a conflict of interest that should compel any thinking person to probe deeper. Same goes for the lead negotiator of a country whose wealth depends on the current energy paradigm. Don't take what Dr. Ball or the lead negotiator from Saudi Arabia says on face value. But don't take what Al "chasing Man-Bear-Pig" Gore says on face value, either.

I addressed some of the inadequacies of Dr. Plimer's work to demonstrate to you that I am thinking about this subject matter and the arguments the other side puts forth. You, on the other hand, just keep looking for sources that confirm your preconceived notions. If you didn't, you wouldn't have used "user generated content" earlier, and you wouldn't have brought up Dr. Plimer, who is so weak, without doing some fact checking first. I am not surprised you brought up Dr. Pilmer, though, since he is often cited by people who are far removed from climate science but eager to claim man made climate change is a hoax.

3 - I've already conceeded that some of the emails make certain scientists look like douches. Big douches. But, for the thousandth time, I want to remind you that there is other research not connected to those emails.

4 - As for your comment that "Big Oil" won't be affected by Cap and Trade, you could be right, in the SHORT term. I actually don't entirely disagree with that, since we don't know for sure how things will play out. I'm sure lobbyists are working dilligently to try and influence the Cap and Trade framework. The long term implications of this could be unfavourable to "Big Oil", though. Economics is not always so straightforward. You can't make predictions about the economic implications of this type of legislation without taking into account the incentives for speeding up the production of alternative energy sources. Will those incentives be enough to get competitors off their asses and producing cleaner, realistic alternative options? Nobody can say for certain what will happen or how long it will take. In the long run, a new enegy paradigm is a threat to "Big Oil", if it prevents the investments in Oil production from yielding their maximum profits. I could say sooo much more on this topic, since it's more complicated. My little blurb here doesn't do it justice.

P.S.

Just to clarify, my remark about Dr. Plimer being "famous" was not meant to contest that he is well known. I really didn't make it clear enough, I guess. I said "Ugh" because he is famous but that means shit. Dr. Plimer is famous, in large part, due to a shitty book. Thus, he is "famous" for the wrong reason. He is actually a perfect example of why fame does not automatically equate to intelligence when it comes to professors. Many of the brightest professors are well known by their colleagues, but not by most of the public. The circumstances that gain a professor public noteriety are not always good ones. Hence, I went "Ugh."

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 12-09-2009 at 05:11 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 11:25 PM   #127 (permalink)
a dick

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

The "Godfather" of global warming:

One of the most influential people behind the theory pretty much denounced it near the end of his life.
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2009, 04:16 PM   #128 (permalink)
a dick

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

Quote:
"The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years," said Colorado State University's William Gray.

Gray said, "This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publicly-funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public."
Quote:
"There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the Western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide-induced global warming disaster," he said. "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested-interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media, which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level out global living standards.

"These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation."
Salisbury News: Hurricane Expert Dr. William Gray On Climategate
Apollo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2009, 05:56 PM   #129 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,098
Representing:
Default

And.....? Not sure I understand what point is being made.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2009, 11:17 PM   #130 (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: 10,467
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollo View Post
The "Godfather" of global warming:

One of the most influential people behind the theory pretty much denounced it near the end of his life.
No, Apollo. Yet AGAIN you didn't do any fact checking before posting. There is no concrete evidence that Revelle ever denounced global warming. This is an old story that's been debunked already.

The video you posted is no longer available, but I managed to watch it before it was removed and I took some notes. There are a number of distortions made in this clip. I found a copy of the Coleman report on Youtube, so I'll repost your video in order to make clearer what I am addressing.


The video about Revelle that Apollo posted:




I'd like to point out that much of Coleman's story is a direct rip off of Lawrence Solomon, a journalist who writes for the National Post. Coleman is mostly just recycling Soloman's old claims, with a few new points, much like Dr. Plimer was mostly just recycling old shit.

1 - @ approx. 1:45 of the video, Coleman says Revelle "was having second thoughts aobut whether C02 was a significant greenhouse gas. He wrote letters to 2 congressmen about it."

Roger Revelle wrote to a Congressmen (Jim Bates) and a Senator (Tim Wirth). These letters were reproduced in the media. Most recently, excerpts from the letters were used in Solomon's story for the National Post. Solomon, and now Coleman, tried to spin the letters to make Revelle look like a denier, but anyone with a brain would realize the letters have to be placed in the context of 1988 and where the current research was at back then. This is an excerpt from Revelle's letter to congressmen Bates (reproduced in the National Post, 19 May 2007):

Quote:
My own personal [Roger Revelle] belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.
Remember, that's 1988. Revelle wanted to wait until the late 1990s before we knew the consequences of C02. He was not doubting its role as a signifacnt green house gas, he just didn't know for certain (in 1988) what role it would play in affecting the lives of humans, "in both positive and negative ways." That is the most damaging quote from the letters. Solomon could not find anything worse than that. Pretty fucking flimsy, especially when you consider what Revelle said after 1988.

This is what Revelle said in the Dallas Morning News on 20 February 1990 (I can't offer a direct link to this article because you'll have to pay for it.) :

- "We have a very strong belief that the climate will get significantly warmer over the next 50 years because of the increase in concentrations of so-called greenhouse gases

He had a "very strong belief" that it was occuring. This is 2 years after those letters to Congressmen Bats and Senator Wirth.

2 - @ approx 1:50 of the clip, Coleman says "in 1991, he [Revelle] co-authored a report for the new science magazine Cosmos in which he expressed his strong doubts about global warming and urged more research before any remidial action was taken."

This is somewhat misleading for a number of reasons. It would require way too much writting to cover the whole Cosmos controversy. Suffice it to say, Revelle had little to do with this article. And what input he did provide, in no way challenged the notion that man made global warming is occuring. Revelle provided a colleage with some technical advice and offered some input on the possibe outcomes of global warming. That's it. He didn't actually write any of it, yet Singer insisted on attaching Revelle's name to it. And Singer didn't even incorporate all of what Revelle suggested.

A LOT is known about the drafting stages of this article, because the article was the subject of a lawsuit. The conditions of the settlement of the lawsuit have now been released, since the gag order expired. As Coleman stated, Revelle was listed as a CO-AUTHOR on the piece that appeared in Cosmos. The primary author was Fred Singer. In fact, by himself, Singer published an almost identical article a year earlier in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. Given Revelle's minimal input, he really didn't need to be attached to this article. Only a small portion of it conformed with Revelle's overall outlook on the situation, such as recommendations for conserving energy, consumption taxes, and investing in nuclear power. He supported that stuff, but not everything in the article. By the way, after Revelle died, Singer went on to work for the Tabacco industry and claimed that smoking does not cause Cancer. That provides context as to what kind of person was potentially exploiting a dying colleague by putting his name on a paper which went against said colleague's views. Not a fair thing to do, if you ask me. Many of Revelle's closest colleages said the only reason Revelle never made a stink about the situation is because Cosmos had such a small redearship.

3 - @ approx. 2:25, Coleman starts making claims about a supposed speech Revelle made in 1991 at Bohemian. He relies on second hand accounts, yet he doesn't say "allegedly." He says it as if it is absolute truth, which is bad journalism. What's hillarious is that Coleman claims some guy from San Francisco remembers the speech "very well" even though it took place 18 years before Coleman's report. Is this a really reliable source?

A month prior to running this story, Coleman wrote this in one of his KUSI reports: [quote]Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.[/QUOTE]

Source: [=http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html]Coleman's written report on GW/Revelle[/url]

Even though he claims to have heard from "people", all Coleman has offered is the speculation of one guy 18 years after the speech. And these "people" offering memories can't even agree on when the speech took place. In Coleman's written story he says 1990, but in the video he says it was 1991.

Who would know best what Roger Revelle really believed in his final days? Most would say his family. Guess what? In 1992, when politicians were misrepresnting Revelle's views, his daughter, with the assistance of several family members, wrote a letter to the Washington Post in order to clarify things. That letter was published and can be accessed via the Washington Post archive.

Here is the article titled "Global Warming: What My Father Really Said", 13 September 1992 Washington Post:

Quote:
Contrary to George Will's "Al Gore's Green Guilt" {op-ed, Sept. 3} Roger Revelle - our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect - remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore's professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense - measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate.
Revelle never failed to point out that there are both established facts and remaining uncertainties about greenhouse warming.

"We're clearly going to have a rise in temperature in the next 100 years because of ... greenhouse gasses ... {but} we don't know how big it is going to be," Revelle said in a videotaped interview with University of California at San Diego biologist Paul Saltman in December 1990. "We can't say whether the temperature rise will be 2 or 10 degrees."

While avoiding the word "catastrophe," Revelle argued that the long-term effect of the predicted warming would be "quite serious because of the effect on water resources. ... We're likely to get a large continental area, particularly in the interior of the North American continent, where it gets drier and drier and drier." He also thought that a small probability of an extremely adverse event, a 10-degree temperature rise, warranted serious action now.

So in recent speeches and writings, he recommended several kinds of action, including:

Change the mix of fossil fuels to use more methane and less coal and oil. "Combustion of methane produces about twice as much energy per gram of carbon dioxide as does the combustion of coal, and about 50 percent more than combustion of oil. It is also a clean, relatively non-polluting fuel. We need to expand greatly and to conserve the world reserves of methane, particularly those of the United States." (American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 1990.)

Conserve energy. Revelle advocated conserving energy by using the price mechanism (the polluter pays principle) - for example, by increasing the tax on gasoline (Cosmos, 1991). In private, he often spoke of a $1.00 a gallon tax as eminently reasonable, not "drastic." Who was the last national politician to advocate a $1.00 gasoline tax?

Use non-fossil energy sources. In the Saltman interview, Revelle reiterated: "I want to see us cut down on use of fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas - especially coal ... a nasty, dangerous substance." He advocated instead nuclear energy, which he argued has been safely generated in France because of good engineers and a single design. Again, the switch from coal to nuclear energy was, to Revelle, not a "drastic" step. But who was the last national politician to speak a good word for nuclear energy? Or a bad word for coal? Revelle also recommended that we develop biomass energy from trees, plants and agricultural wastes.

Sequester carbon in trees. Revelle noted favorably President Bush's proposal to plant a billion trees a year for the next 10 years, which could accumulate substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Revelle would have been happy to see public spending of several billion dollars annually to promote tree growth worldwide.

All of us remember our father's frustration at the White House award ceremony in November 1990, when he received the National Medal of Science. Told he would sit next to John Sununu, a well known advocate of the "wait and see" approach, he was delighted at the prospect of bending Sununu's ear. When Sununu failed to appear, Revelle was disappointed, saying, "I had hoped to tell him what a dim view I take of the administration's environmental policies."

Roger Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage "look before you leap," but he never said "sit on your hands."

The writer was assisted in the preparation of this article by other members of her family: her mother, Ellen, her sisters, Anne Shumway and Mary Paci, and her brother, William Roger Revelle.

Last edited by Bill Haverchuck; 12-10-2009 at 11:25 PM.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2009, 08:53 AM   #131 (permalink)
DVS
in la la land

I'm stuck being a Rap Fan
 
DVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Its jeffb's world we just post in it
Posts: 6,025
Representing:
Default

YouTube - Toronto Mayer, David Miller, accepts Canada's Fossil Award

The best thing Mayor Miller has done in his tenure was accept this award. Its nice to see Canada look a little badass for once. Yes my tongue is firmly pressed against my cheek
DVS is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 08:25 AM   #132 (permalink)
I believe in Masai

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,052
Representing:
Default

Quote:
An independent British report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved, something many in the field hope will help calm the global uproar dubbed “Climategate.”

The inquiry by former U.K. civil servant Muir Russell into the scandal at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit found there was no evidence of dishonesty or corruption in the more than 1,000 e-mails that were posted to the Internet late last year. But he did chide the scientists involved for failing to share their data with critics.

“We find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” Mr. Russell said. “But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.”
Quote:
Mr. Russell's report examined whether there was any evidence that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit doctored or suppressed data, perverted the peer review process, or improperly blocked Freedom of Information requests — something Britain's data-protection watchdog has already scolded the university for doing.

The report follows a British parliamentary inquiry that largely backed the scientists involved and another independent investigation that gave a clean bill of health to the science itself.
'Climategate' probe mostly vindicates scientists - The Globe and Mail
'trane 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 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, 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