alandoamazing
[link=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/]"Science"[/link]
A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
wizzler
I have always brought up the mid-evil warm spell to people when they brought their BS global warming stuff up to me. Some how that evidence was never good enough. This "warming" at the very least has happened before. Nothing to freak out about.

Quote 0 0
LLegend4eva_old
Global warming definitely is overdone. I'm so sick of all this going green talk, it's ridiclous. However, I don't know how the concept of global warming just doesn't make sense. The chemicals that we depend heavily on are proven to trap heat, thus accelerating the earth's natural process of warming. Earth naturally is warming, because earth has natural chemicals that trap heat. It's a little silly to think that all tons of chemicals and pollution we put in the air, decade after decade, don't do ANYTHING? Whether or not those chemicals contribute to "global warming" is highly controversial, but all the pollution we create simply can't be good.
Quote 0 0
alandoamazing
Mr_mike527 wrote:


Alando=Amazing wrote:


[link=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/]"Science"[/link]


Isn't the big deal that's been made over this hacking a little ridiculous? Am I the only one who had to google "the University of East Anglia" to even know what people were talking about?

Let's say East Anglia completely made up the fact that temparatures were changing. Does anyone really doubt that temparatures have been changing? Usually, arguments against Man-Made Climate Change being real tend to follow the sort of path Wizzler has pointed out--sure, the climate is changing, but its not man-made.

So you're telling me that because East Anglia, a University ranked 20th in England, decides to make up numbers, that is somehow the final "nail in the coffin" to those who argue for Climate Change? I don't know much about Climate Change beyond the political battle over it, but taking this seriously seems like foolishness to me. Instead of hacking next time, I would suggest simply checking the figures East Anglia uses. Its not like the temperature is a top-secret piece of data. I feel like it would be easier to say "hm...East Anglia says it was 80 that day, and it was actually 60" than to hack through thousands of files.

If every time someone made something up on a major issue we declared that side the loser, both sides of every argument would lose. Just because a completely random University in England made up their data doesn't mean everyone who agrees with their Conclusion also made things up.

Its not silly to think that Man-Made Global Warming isn't real. It is silly to believe this "discovery" proves Man-Made Global Warming isn't real.


It doesn't prove Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't real, what it does prove is scientists have an interest in promoting that it is and actually do skew statistics and mess with data in order to prove that it does. That is what this proves.

Actually for the last 10 years there hasn't been warming either, world temperatures have steadily decreased since 1998. Apparently that isn't "newsworthy" though. That fact isn't even debatable either.


A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
LLegend4eva_old
The consensus among the scientific community is that global warming is real, i'm sure there are scientists who are republican that believe in it too...
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
LLegend4eva wrote:


Global warming definitely is overdone. I'm so sick of all this going green talk, it's ridiclous. However, I don't know how the concept of global warming just doesn't make sense. The chemicals that we depend heavily on are proven to trap heat, thus accelerating the earth's natural process of warming. Earth naturally is warming, because earth has natural chemicals that trap heat. It's a little silly to think that all tons of chemicals and pollution we put in the air, decade after decade, don't do ANYTHING? Whether or not those chemicals contribute to "global warming" is highly controversial, but all the pollution we create simply can't be good.


This is my view on it. I think a lot of people don't know what having the chemicals in the atmosphere will really do, but I don't think its a stretch to say its bad for the environment.

Also, Alando, I don't buy that for one second. These were e-mails hacked from a building project in which a huge amount of money was being given to the school as a result of the effort to "Go Green." These weren't unbiased scientists. For this to really mean anything to you, either

A) You didn't previously think tens of millions of dollars could persuade scientists to skew data
B) You were one of the people giving the tens of millions to the University

I understand the scandal from the "B" point of view, but as a larger "nail in the coffin" to global warming theories, I think this is lacking in any meaning.
Quote 0 0
alandoamazing
Mr_mike527 wrote:


LLegend4eva wrote:


Global warming definitely is overdone. I'm so sick of all this going green talk, it's ridiclous. However, I don't know how the concept of global warming just doesn't make sense. The chemicals that we depend heavily on are proven to trap heat, thus accelerating the earth's natural process of warming. Earth naturally is warming, because earth has natural chemicals that trap heat. It's a little silly to think that all tons of chemicals and pollution we put in the air, decade after decade, don't do ANYTHING? Whether or not those chemicals contribute to "global warming" is highly controversial, but all the pollution we create simply can't be good.


This is my view on it. I think a lot of people don't know what having the chemicals in the atmosphere will really do, but I don't think its a stretch to say its bad for the environment.

Also, Alando, I don't buy that for one second. These were e-mails hacked from a building project in which a huge amount of money was being given to the school as a result of the effort to "Go Green." These weren't unbiased scientists. For this to really mean anything to you, either

A) You didn't previously think tens of millions of dollars could persuade scientists to skew data
B) You were one of the people giving the tens of millions to the University

I understand the scandal from the "B" point of view, but as a larger "nail in the coffin" to global warming theories, I think this is lacking in any meaning.


Theres no such thing as an unbiased scientist though, that is the point. What does climate science look like without the fear of global catastrophe caused by AGW? Its a whole lot of scientists fighting for a small amount of grant money, doing what most of the world views as not very important research.

Now, add AGW into the mix. Climate science is getting an impossibly large sum of money. You don't think they have a stake in whether or not AGW is real? If it is real they have a job, if it isn't they don't. People say that the oil companies pay for scientists to say certain things, but in reality that goes both ways.

Look at Al Gore, do you know the insane amount of money he is making because of AGW? It is ridiculous, it is as bad as L. Ron Hubbard creating scientology. There is no such thing as an unbiased person, opinion, scientist. It is just not reality.

And, I didn't write the article, "nail in the coffin" were not my words.


A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
Alando=Amazing wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


LLegend4eva wrote:


Global warming definitely is overdone. I'm so sick of all this going green talk, it's ridiclous. However, I don't know how the concept of global warming just doesn't make sense. The chemicals that we depend heavily on are proven to trap heat, thus accelerating the earth's natural process of warming. Earth naturally is warming, because earth has natural chemicals that trap heat. It's a little silly to think that all tons of chemicals and pollution we put in the air, decade after decade, don't do ANYTHING? Whether or not those chemicals contribute to "global warming" is highly controversial, but all the pollution we create simply can't be good.


This is my view on it. I think a lot of people don't know what having the chemicals in the atmosphere will really do, but I don't think its a stretch to say its bad for the environment.

Also, Alando, I don't buy that for one second. These were e-mails hacked from a building project in which a huge amount of money was being given to the school as a result of the effort to "Go Green." These weren't unbiased scientists. For this to really mean anything to you, either

A) You didn't previously think tens of millions of dollars could persuade scientists to skew data
B) You were one of the people giving the tens of millions to the University

I understand the scandal from the "B" point of view, but as a larger "nail in the coffin" to global warming theories, I think this is lacking in any meaning.


Theres no such thing as an unbiased scientist though, that is the point. What does climate science look like without the fear of global catastrophe caused by AGW? Its a whole lot of scientists fighting for a small amount of grant money, doing what most of the world views as not very important research.

Now, add AGW into the mix. Climate science is getting an impossibly large sum of money. You don't think they have a stake in whether or not AGW is real? If it is real they have a job, if it isn't they don't. People say that the oil companies pay for scientists to say certain things, but in reality that goes both ways.

Look at Al Gore, do you know the insane amount of money he is making because of AGW? It is ridiculous, it is as bad as L. Ron Hubbard creating scientology. There is no such thing as an unbiased person, opinion, scientist. It is just not reality.

And, I didn't write the article, "nail in the coffin" were not my words.


Yet that's not the point. You could have said that before this article just as well as you can say it now. These aren't your average Climate Scientists looking to make their Science get more money. They're researchers at a specific university that is getting tens of millions of dollars in grant money--and it should be pointed out they fudged their statistics after the project started, not before.

Besides, your logic is backwards. People aren't born Climatologists and decide "hey, we should invent something that will make us money!" I would assume most go to school for general sciences and decide to go into climatology. Do you really think that the broad majority of scientists who study climate change go into their craft believing its all a sham? It's one thing to say they're wrong, it's another to say they're willingly lying.

And again, you're onto an argument that isn't really effective disputing Climate Change. If you're arguing they're wrong, fine, but that doesn't really have a huge amount to do with incentives for it to be real, especially when the numbers are concrete and measurable.
Quote 0 0
crusaderpride
Mr_mike527 wrote:


Alando=Amazing wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


LLegend4eva wrote:


Global warming definitely is overdone. I'm so sick of all this going green talk, it's ridiclous. However, I don't know how the concept of global warming just doesn't make sense. The chemicals that we depend heavily on are proven to trap heat, thus accelerating the earth's natural process of warming. Earth naturally is warming, because earth has natural chemicals that trap heat. It's a little silly to think that all tons of chemicals and pollution we put in the air, decade after decade, don't do ANYTHING? Whether or not those chemicals contribute to "global warming" is highly controversial, but all the pollution we create simply can't be good.


This is my view on it. I think a lot of people don't know what having the chemicals in the atmosphere will really do, but I don't think its a stretch to say its bad for the environment.

Also, Alando, I don't buy that for one second. These were e-mails hacked from a building project in which a huge amount of money was being given to the school as a result of the effort to "Go Green." These weren't unbiased scientists. For this to really mean anything to you, either

A) You didn't previously think tens of millions of dollars could persuade scientists to skew data
B) You were one of the people giving the tens of millions to the University

I understand the scandal from the "B" point of view, but as a larger "nail in the coffin" to global warming theories, I think this is lacking in any meaning.


Theres no such thing as an unbiased scientist though, that is the point. What does climate science look like without the fear of global catastrophe caused by AGW? Its a whole lot of scientists fighting for a small amount of grant money, doing what most of the world views as not very important research.

Now, add AGW into the mix. Climate science is getting an impossibly large sum of money. You don't think they have a stake in whether or not AGW is real? If it is real they have a job, if it isn't they don't. People say that the oil companies pay for scientists to say certain things, but in reality that goes both ways.

Look at Al Gore, do you know the insane amount of money he is making because of AGW? It is ridiculous, it is as bad as L. Ron Hubbard creating scientology. There is no such thing as an unbiased person, opinion, scientist. It is just not reality.

And, I didn't write the article, "nail in the coffin" were not my words.


Yet that's not the point. You could have said that before this article just as well as you can say it now. These aren't your average Climate Scientists looking to make their Science get more money. They're researchers at a specific university that is getting tens of millions of dollars in grant money--and it should be pointed out they fudged their statistics after the project started, not before.

Besides, your logic is backwards. People aren't born Climatologists and decide "hey, we should invent something that will make us money!" I would assume most go to school for general sciences and decide to go into climatology. Do you really think that the broad majority of scientists who study climate change go into their craft believing its all a sham? It's one thing to say they're wrong, it's another to say they're willingly lying.

And again, you're onto an argument that isn't really effective disputing Climate Change. If you're arguing they're wrong, fine, but that doesn't really have a huge amount to do with incentives for it to be real, especially when the numbers are concrete and measurable.


But they aren't.


Quote 0 0
mrmike527
Alando=Amazing wrote:


[link=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/]"Science"[/link]


Isn't the big deal that's been made over this hacking a little ridiculous? Am I the only one who had to google "the University of East Anglia" to even know what people were talking about?

Let's say East Anglia completely made up the fact that temparatures were changing. Does anyone really doubt that temparatures have been changing? Usually, arguments against Man-Made Climate Change being real tend to follow the sort of path Wizzler has pointed out--sure, the climate is changing, but its not man-made.

So you're telling me that because East Anglia, a University ranked 20th in England, decides to make up numbers, that is somehow the final "nail in the coffin" to those who argue for Climate Change? I don't know much about Climate Change beyond the political battle over it, but taking this seriously seems like foolishness to me. Instead of hacking next time, I would suggest simply checking the figures East Anglia uses. Its not like the temperature is a top-secret piece of data. I feel like it would be easier to say "hm...East Anglia says it was 80 that day, and it was actually 60" than to hack through thousands of files.

If every time someone made something up on a major issue we declared that side the loser, both sides of every argument would lose. Just because a completely random University in England made up their data doesn't mean everyone who agrees with their Conclusion also made things up.

Its not silly to think that Man-Made Global Warming isn't real. It is silly to believe this "discovery" proves Man-Made Global Warming isn't real.
Quote 0 0
jimmyq1
Mr_mike527 wrote:


Alando=Amazing wrote:


[link=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/]"Science"[/link]


Isn't the big deal that's been made over this hacking a little ridiculous? Am I the only one who had to google "the University of East Anglia" to even know what people were talking about?

Let's say East Anglia completely made up the fact that temparatures were changing. Does anyone really doubt that temparatures have been changing? Usually, arguments against Man-Made Climate Change being real tend to follow the sort of path Wizzler has pointed out--sure, the climate is changing, but its not man-made.

So you're telling me that because East Anglia, a University ranked 20th in England, decides to make up numbers, that is somehow the final "nail in the coffin" to those who argue for Climate Change? I don't know much about Climate Change beyond the political battle over it, but taking this seriously seems like foolishness to me. Instead of hacking next time, I would suggest simply checking the figures East Anglia uses. Its not like the temperature is a top-secret piece of data. I feel like it would be easier to say "hm...East Anglia says it was 80 that day, and it was actually 60" than to hack through thousands of files.

If every time someone made something up on a major issue we declared that side the loser, both sides of every argument would lose. Just because a completely random University in England made up their data doesn't mean everyone who agrees with their Conclusion also made things up.

Its not silly to think that Man-Made Global Warming isn't real. It is silly to believe this "discovery" proves Man-Made Global Warming isn't real.


Remember that a lot of what the hackers found was communications with people outside that university. Many of the conversations were with Americans. Many of those conversations can now be had under the Freedom of Information Act. While this may (will probably?) lead to nothing, there will surely be a massive fishing expedition for the foreseeable future.

Maybe this means no more Natalie Holloway discussion, at least for a few years?

Quote 0 0
mrmike527
Alando=Amazing wrote:

I'm not saying all of them are flat out lying, I'm saying that they have a bias to fit their findings into the narrative that there is a problem.

The numbers are not concrete at all, looking at tree rings and ice core samples to determine temperatures isn't concrete at all. You cannot deny the fact that Climatologists have a huge stake in AGW being a big societal issue.

Even if you don't agree at all with what I'm saying you should read the book "The Deniers" It profiles a bunch of high profile scientists who question AGW and a good read no matter what you believe just to get both sides of the story.


The point is that the numbers they study are numbers. You don't have to look at a number and say "well...that looks like a 3...but it could be an 8." If they come up with a range of numbers, no matter what your bias is, 10-20 degrees is 10-20 degrees.

Where the bias comes into play is in the theories that are derived from the numbers. Is it warming? Is it man-made? Is it caused by fossil fuels? Is Cap and Trade necessary? And etc.

In these e-mails, it would be at least something if the people were saying "Well, I think its clear that this is not man-made. But let's act like it is just so we can get the money." Instead, they're saying "Our findings aren't really that dramatic, but let's make it look like they are to further our theory."

You're arguing that people are biased, and that effects their conclusions from data. That's fine, and entirely possible, but what's happening here is not that. What's happening here is people are just flat-out altering their data to get more money. Crooked? Sure. But indicative of anything beyond that in the overall Climate Change debate? No.
Quote 0 0
alandoamazing
Mr_mike527 wrote:


Alando=Amazing wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


LLegend4eva wrote:


Global warming definitely is overdone. I'm so sick of all this going green talk, it's ridiclous. However, I don't know how the concept of global warming just doesn't make sense. The chemicals that we depend heavily on are proven to trap heat, thus accelerating the earth's natural process of warming. Earth naturally is warming, because earth has natural chemicals that trap heat. It's a little silly to think that all tons of chemicals and pollution we put in the air, decade after decade, don't do ANYTHING? Whether or not those chemicals contribute to "global warming" is highly controversial, but all the pollution we create simply can't be good.


This is my view on it. I think a lot of people don't know what having the chemicals in the atmosphere will really do, but I don't think its a stretch to say its bad for the environment.

Also, Alando, I don't buy that for one second. These were e-mails hacked from a building project in which a huge amount of money was being given to the school as a result of the effort to "Go Green." These weren't unbiased scientists. For this to really mean anything to you, either

A) You didn't previously think tens of millions of dollars could persuade scientists to skew data
B) You were one of the people giving the tens of millions to the University

I understand the scandal from the "B" point of view, but as a larger "nail in the coffin" to global warming theories, I think this is lacking in any meaning.


Theres no such thing as an unbiased scientist though, that is the point. What does climate science look like without the fear of global catastrophe caused by AGW? Its a whole lot of scientists fighting for a small amount of grant money, doing what most of the world views as not very important research.

Now, add AGW into the mix. Climate science is getting an impossibly large sum of money. You don't think they have a stake in whether or not AGW is real? If it is real they have a job, if it isn't they don't. People say that the oil companies pay for scientists to say certain things, but in reality that goes both ways.

Look at Al Gore, do you know the insane amount of money he is making because of AGW? It is ridiculous, it is as bad as L. Ron Hubbard creating scientology. There is no such thing as an unbiased person, opinion, scientist. It is just not reality.

And, I didn't write the article, "nail in the coffin" were not my words.


Yet that's not the point. You could have said that before this article just as well as you can say it now. These aren't your average Climate Scientists looking to make their Science get more money. They're researchers at a specific university that is getting tens of millions of dollars in grant money--and it should be pointed out they fudged their statistics after the project started, not before.

Besides, your logic is backwards. People aren't born Climatologists and decide "hey, we should invent something that will make us money!" I would assume most go to school for general sciences and decide to go into climatology. Do you really think that the broad majority of scientists who study climate change go into their craft believing its all a sham? It's one thing to say they're wrong, it's another to say they're willingly lying.

And again, you're onto an argument that isn't really effective disputing Climate Change. If you're arguing they're wrong, fine, but that doesn't really have a huge amount to do with incentives for it to be real, especially when the numbers are concrete and measurable.


I'm not saying all of them are flat out lying, I'm saying that they have a bias to fit their findings into the narrative that there is a problem.

The numbers are not concrete at all, looking at tree rings and ice core samples to determine temperatures isn't concrete at all. You cannot deny the fact that Climatologists have a huge stake in AGW being a big societal issue.

Even if you don't agree at all with what I'm saying you should read the book "The Deniers" It profiles a bunch of high profile scientists who question AGW and a good read no matter what you believe just to get both sides of the story.


A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
alandoamazing
Mr_mike527 wrote:


Alando=Amazing wrote:

I'm not saying all of them are flat out lying, I'm saying that they have a bias to fit their findings into the narrative that there is a problem.

The numbers are not concrete at all, looking at tree rings and ice core samples to determine temperatures isn't concrete at all. You cannot deny the fact that Climatologists have a huge stake in AGW being a big societal issue.

Even if you don't agree at all with what I'm saying you should read the book "The Deniers" It profiles a bunch of high profile scientists who question AGW and a good read no matter what you believe just to get both sides of the story.


The point is that the numbers they study are numbers. You don't have to look at a number and say "well...that looks like a 3...but it could be an 8." If they come up with a range of numbers, no matter what your bias is, 10-20 degrees is 10-20 degrees.

Where the bias comes into play is in the theories that are derived from the numbers. Is it warming? Is it man-made? Is it caused by fossil fuels? Is Cap and Trade necessary? And etc.

In these e-mails, it would be at least something if the people were saying "Well, I think its clear that this is not man-made. But let's act like it is just so we can get the money." Instead, they're saying "Our findings aren't really that dramatic, but let's make it look like they are to further our theory."

You're arguing that people are biased, and that effects their conclusions from data. That's fine, and entirely possible, but what's happening here is not that. What's happening here is people are just flat-out altering their data to get more money. Crooked? Sure. But indicative of anything beyond that in the overall Climate Change debate? No.


I'm not trying to make the argument that this ends the debate over AGW. I think its not out of the realm of possibility that AGW is real. I'm very skeptical, but I still think it's possible. I think this is just another bit of evidence though that there needs to be more debate. It is just dangerous when people get blackballed for raising concerns and questions.

When you're trying to reach a conclusion on temperature variations of a fraction of a degree from as large a range as things like ice cores and tree rings give you it is a lot of surmising and there is a lot of room to make the numbers tell the story you want. Is doing this intentional? I would say no in most cases, but when people have a hypothesis it is very easy for them to use the information they gather to bolster their case, and a lot harder for them to accept that they may be wrong. That is just human nature. That is why debate is important, expecially on an issue like this.

Especially debate over the implications of policy. I don't want to get into that though.

I'm serious about that book though Mr. Mike. It's even written by an environmentalist, you'd find it fascinating.






A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
wissportsnet

Boys Basketball Alumni Round-up: February 21st, from @ColtonWilson23 #wisbb -- https://t.co/0K6CZzZWpf https://t.co/715tfpBGVS

wissportsnet

WSN15: Boys Basketball Top Teams #12 -- Two NCAA Division I players at one WIAA Division 4 school = state champions… https://t.co/1MThqzce9L

wissportsnet

Predicting winners of every state wrestling title plus a look By The Numbers, from @Nate_Woelfel -… https://t.co/HgU1bLP7d6

wissportsnet

Join the free Boys Basketball Playoff Pick 'Em Contest; Staff picks coming Tuesday #wisbb -- https://t.co/Y6yTA3OgP8 https://t.co/hA6Uyw9uje