News Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[DanP]

One thing about collaborative research is that personal biases tend to get evened out through feedback within the group - a level of self-check that you don't get with solo researchers. This makes charges of dishonesty or fraud quite serious, because the clear implication is that the researchers colluded to knowingly produce a fraudulent result. Such charges are political in nature, and when made by "scientists", are quite unprofessional.

Of course. Making such statements may be very unprofessional, but are effective tools to gain political support. When was last time we seen politics "professional" ?

 

[D H]

One thing about collaborative research is that personal biases tend to get evened out through feedback within the group - a level of self-check that you don't get with solo researchers.

You are ignoring groupthink, turbo. Groupthink coupled with a self-righteous belief that they are saving the planet can (and apparently did) lead to all kinds of shenanigans.

 

[Andre]

One thing about collaborative research is that personal biases tend to get evened out through feedback within the group - a level of self-check that you don't get with solo researchers.

With all respect, Turbo, maybe you should take note of the phenomenon group think.

 

[Sorry!]

It would be better to quote, because that is not what I said. I said that it makes no sense.



Believing is not what science is about, is it? It's about transparancy and reproduceability. If if the word "trick" is used in a good scientific context, it would be easy to reproduce and explain what it was all about. And of course, also about the word "hide" that was in the same sentence, as far as I remember.

I did quote you if you read my post above. What I'm saying is that you put the skeptics and the scientists at the same level of scrutiny. This makes no sense considering one is speculating only with the intent of hurting the reputation of the other, and the other are the actual ones who wrote the e-mails.

As well these terms have been explained again and again and again, if people just choose not to believe the scientists then so be it. That's their personal decision but they can hardly say they made it unbiased.

Yes, science is about reproducibility and not 'believing', sure... We've already gotten into a discussion about whether to 'believe' the data and people claiming it's not 'reproducible' but even though I previously posted MANY links to data and sylas even made a post about how he personally constructed and coded his own models with similar results, people still would rather believe in the speculation of others on the scientists.

Mann said the “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html

The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

From skepticalscience.com http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html

If you want reproducible head on over to http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes you can see the CRU compared to multiple other independent sources. What decline are they hiding from 1981 onwards? Here's a good article: http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php .

Which is why scientists are spectacularly unimpressed with the emails being evidence of anything much at all. It’’s not that they are “circling the wagons” and “protecting their own” (as I have seen some suggest). They just “understand the language.” Not simply the words, but the structure and patterns that make up the “scientific dialect.” Even Denier Patrick Michaels said the emails were “just the way scientists talk” (although he has apparently now gotten “on msg” with the rest of the Denier choir).Who's group thinking again?

Bold mine.

 

[seycyrus]

**...it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.***

"Hiding" is not an accepted data handling technique. Never has, and never should be.

Just as "redefining peer-reviewed" should not be acceptable.

I love how all of a sudden we now have a *consensus* of scientists that think climategate is not a big deal. Gotta love how the powers that be are so quick to decide what the consensus thinks on the matter.

 

[Sorry!]

**...it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.***

"Hiding" is not an accepted data handling technique. Never has, and never should be.

Just as "redefining peer-reviewed" should not be acceptable.

I love how all of a sudden we now have a *consensus* of scientists that think climategate is not a big deal. Gotta love how the powers that be are so quick to decide what the consensus thinks on the matter.

It never was a big deal to the scientist, more of a nuissance I guess. Really annoying when people claim they know everything about things you are an expert on, especially when they begin to claim knowing things to do with your PERSONAL life, such as language they use...

As well before I ever read any statements by the scientists I knew immediately what they meant by 'hide the decline'. Why you may ask yourself? I have been interested in the area of climate research for QUITE some time. I'm young and obviously not a scientist on the subject or by any means a professional but I have done extensive research into the area multiple times.

I would also cite the area of where peer-review gets pinned on these scientists as well because of the content in their personal e-mails but I can't really be bothered. It is quite clear to me where people stand on this matter.

 

[skypunter]

You're not going to win it like that... (LOL Also working on the award! joking :tongue)

Anyway skypunter, you I'm just curious as to your position on the whole situation is currently. Merely about the information released and the "scandal" that has come out of it... nothing to do with data or AGW. Strictly about the scientists and their conduct involved. (Including use of words, behaviour, etc. etc.)

First point agreed, not very funny.

My position about the information released is that it is for the most part pretty mild stuff, but if you extrapolate...

Hiding the decline may be about more than simply masking atypical data.
For me it is an attempt to withold from public view the possibility that tree ring proxies may not be very useful. I expect that the same may be true of ice core data.

 

[skypunter]

I also agree with the "Groupthink" motive as opposed to the "Conspiracy" strawman.

 

[DanP]

It never was a big deal to the scientist, more of a nuissance I guess. Really annoying when people claim they know everything about things you are an expert on, especially when they begin to claim knowing things to do with your PERSONAL life, such as language they use...

As well before I ever read any statements by the scientists I knew immediately what they meant by 'hide the decline'. Why you may ask yourself? I have been interested in the area of climate research for QUITE some time. I'm young and obviously not a scientist on the subject or by any means a professional but I have done extensive research into the area multiple times.

You just took a leap of faith and accepted a version. You have no data whatsoever to conclude one way or another in regard with the exact meaning of the words used. The fact that you accepted one meaning for 'hide the decline' is no proof of the sense in which it was used. It may be so, then it might be not.

The fact is, you can't cry foul play if others choose not to take this leap of faith.

 

[Andre]

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php .[/URL]

Who's group thinking again?

Looks almost like an excellent mind guard job

 

[Andre]

There is also this one to consider. It appears that the 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, "Mankind at the Turning Point” says:

It would seem that humans need a common motivation.. .either a real one or else one invented for the purpose...In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

Could that imply that global warming was invented for the purpose of having an enemy to unite us? How scientific is that?

 

[DanP]

There is also this one to consider. It appears that the 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, "Mankind at the Turning Point” says:



Could that imply that global warming was invented for the purpose of having an enemy to unite us? How scientific is that?

I don't think that GW is invented. However, it doesn't have to be invented to serve a political scope. Real or imaginary, a phenomena with worldwide exposure can be used as a modern version of "panem et circenses".

 

[Sorry!]

You just took a leap of faith and accepted a version. You have no data whatsoever to conclude one way or another in regard with the exact meaning of the words used. The fact that you accepted one meaning for 'hide the decline' is no proof of the sense in which it was used. It may be so, then it might be not.

The fact is, you can't cry foul play if others choose not to take this leap of faith.

You sir have not been following the thread to take in the full context of comments. You are guilty of the exact same thing the people who say 'hide the decline' ACTUALLY meant this and yada yada.

I'm replying to a specific comment made by Andre, namely:

Speculating without exact context does not make not much sense but rest assured that somewhere else this case is scrutinized, to see whether it was a cheating 'trick' or a clever solution.

My point is that the scientist were having a private discussion between themselves where they ALL know what terms mean and imply. You can go look them up if you don't understand, read the articles yourself (they do exist if that's what you imply by I have no data and blaming me of taking a leap of faith? Do you know what a leap of faith is?). Then some outsiders takes these e-mails and THEY speculate on what the words impy and particular terms imply. Anyone who follows climate research could have easily understood what they probably implied(I assume easily because I understood well before they released statements... yet somehow I took a leap of faith... weird.) So climate researchers say 'no-no-no it just means this and that' and people are going on speculating about what was originally speculated by the skeptics that released the e-mails... with the intent of making the CRU look bad ON TOP OF IT ALL...

I responded to Andre, maybe my first post wasn't the clearest but regardless it was comments directed at him then someone else comes in and speculates on what my comments meant and implied... so I respond. Then YOU come along and are speculating on TOP of the other persons speculations... the only sides I see to this are: There is what has 'actually' occurred and there is what randoms are 'speculating' occured.

 

[DanP]

You sir have not been following the thread to take in the full context of comments. You are guilty of the exact same thing the people who say 'hide the decline' ACTUALLY meant this and yada yada.

I'm replying to a specific comment made by Andre, namely:My point is that the scientist were having a private discussion between themselves where they ALL know what terms mean and imply. You can go look them up if you don't understand, read the articles yourself (they do exist if that's what you imply by I have no data and blaming me of taking a leap of faith? Do you know what a leap of faith is?). Then some outsiders takes these e-mails and THEY speculate on what the words impy and particular terms imply. Anyone who follows climate research could have easily understood what they probably implied(I assume easily because I understood well before they released statements... yet somehow I took a leap of faith... weird.) So climate researchers say 'no-no-no it just means this and that' and people are going on speculating about what was originally speculated by the skeptics that released the e-mails... with the intent of making the CRU look bad ON TOP OF IT ALL...

I responded to Andre, maybe my first post wasn't the clearest but regardless it was comments directed at him then someone else comes in and speculates on what my comments meant and implied... so I respond. Then YOU come along and are speculating on TOP of the other persons speculations... the only sides I see to this are: There is what has 'actually' occurred and there is what randoms are 'speculating' occured.

Do you realize that we all can read ? Keep your comments out of a internet forum if you have a problem with ppl not agreeing with what you say.

 

[Sorry!]

Do you realize that we all can read ? Keep your comments out of a internet forum if you have a problem with ppl not agreeing with what you say.

The problem isn't people not agreeing with what I say. The problem is people speculating on what was said ontop of other speculations of what was said.

Yes you can read the question is did you?

You claim there's 'no data whatsoever' to support what hide the decline meant or these 'tricks' mean. Have you read the articles which explains them? Have you read the reports and more articles that support the position of the original article? Do you even know what the 'trick' is that's implied? Do you have any idea of what they imply when the say 'the decline'?

 

[DanP]

The problem isn't people not agreeing with what I say. The problem is people speculating on what was said ontop of other speculations of what was said.

Sure. Everything of what you said is speculative. An educated guess is speculative until you can prove it. You took a position and blindly defend it. It's OK. Just don't expect everyone takes your speculations for facts. You can of course open a thread in "Earth" science forum and produce proof.

In not saying that there not what you say. Or there it is. Only that you don't have data to produce an evidence.

 

[Sorry!]

Looks almost like an excellent mind guard job

This is true, I've never heard of that term before. Thanks.

There is also this one to consider. It appears that the 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, "Mankind at the Turning Point” says:

Could that imply that global warming was invented for the purpose of having an enemy to unite us? How scientific is that?

I don't think that the comment you quoted is implying that global warming was invented. I think that they are saying that the politicians came up with the idea that those things listed would fit the bill as serving as an enemy to humanity to force us into unity. It's a political move based on the science, not a political move in science. (Not quite sure how to word this one.) You can hardly say that famine was 'invented' and it's on that list too...

 

[Sorry!]

Sure. Everything of what you said is speculative. An educated guess is speculative until you can prove it. You took a position and blindly defend it. It's OK. Just don't expect everyone takes your speculations for facts. You can of course open a thread in "Earth" science forum and produce proof.

In not saying that there not what you say. Or there it is. Only that you don't have data to produce an evidence.

Ok so me reading articles which defines which tricks are being used (prior to knowing they called it 'a trick') and knowledge on the decline (I'm pretty sure it was something about 1981 decline the skeptics say they are hiding) makes my comments purely speculative at this moment? Sure at the beginning it was just speculation, I already said that, but after the scientists confirmed in a statement what they were talking about, it's no longer speculation on my part. It is what it is.

 

[DanP]

Sure at the beginning it was just speculation, I already said that, but after the scientists confirmed in a statement what they were talking about, it's no longer speculation on my part. It is what it is.

As long as the integrity of those scientists is put in question, it's a mater of faith if you believe their press releases or not. Some do. Others dont.

 

[Sorry!]

As long as the integrity of those scientists is put in question, it's a mater of faith if you believe their press releases or not. Some do. Others dont.

Lol, so then conduct some research.

EDIT: Needs to meet guidelines right? DanP I suggest you do some personal research into the area of climate research. It is of my opinion that through this personal research you will see, at least hopefully, the errors made in the skeptics claims reagarding the terms used in the e-mails.

 

[turbo]

Lol, so then conduct some research.

The energy companies that have the most most to gain from suppressing "global warming" research have really big bucks are very rich. They can afford to finance some pretty big studies to counter the AGW claims. Where are they? Where are the studies?

 

[Evo]

Lol, so then conduct some research.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't meet our standards for posting here.

The standards of posting here need to improve or I will have to take action. I suggest that if you can't post anything of value, don't post.

 

[DanP]

Lol, so then conduct some research.

What for ? I am not the one who needs convincing. The ones who need to be convinced are the man who swing the cash in the industries with gas emission problems. The lobby groups. The governments. For some of them questioning the integrity of some groups is very advantageous politically.

Those won't be swung easily.

 

[DanP]

The energy companies that have the most most to gain from suppressing "global warming" research have really big bucks are very rich. They can afford to finance some pretty big studies to counter the AGW claims. Where are they? Where are the studies?

Frankly, I believe that it's more lucrative to battle politically than scientifically in this issue. Their money are better pored into lobby and political machinations than research.

 

[Sorry!]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't meet our standards for posting here.

The standards of posting here need to improve or I will have to take action. I suggest that if you can't post anything of value, don't post.

Sorry Evo, editted my post. Figured it was implied, and would be understood, that since I was posting it in such a way that it is my opinion.

What for ? I am not the one who needs convincing. The ones who need to be convinced are the man who swing the cash in the industries with gas emission problems. The lobby groups. The governments. For some of them questioning the integrity of some groups is very advantageous politically.

Those won't be swung easily.

In my opinion the only way to effect these people is through the general population. An impact will never be made without societies support. I guess it would be possible for the 'men who swing the cash' to suddenly change their opinion from cash-generating based on what the population wants/needs to supporting climate research and advocating safer practises however I feel currently switching to this mode will come at a great risk(financially). It would be different obviously if all groups suddenly shifted support but this probably won't happen, at least for quite some time.

Frankly, I believe that it's more lucrative to battle politically than scientifically in this issue. Their money are better pored into lobby and political machinations than research.

Exactly the problem, "their money are better pored into lobby...", it should be noted that better is a subjective term. This is what I was getting at above, it won't provide the financial security or even more importantly in this case, political security (for individauls or groups) that other options can give...

 

[Andre]

Looks almost like an excellent mind guard job

This is true, I've never heard of that term before. Thanks.

Sorry! I respect your dedication for a good cause, but could you agree with the following?

1: A Mindguard is trying to guard the partyline
2: A Skeptic is trying to guard reality.

Compare for instance:

Move on, folks, nothing to see here. It's all a lie of the evil people, trust us.

Come on in, people, help your self and see for your self, how we did it.

Now, whose car would you buy?

Oh incidentely, mindguarding is #8 symptom of http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm also #4 symptom of groupthink.

Could you also understand that some people might suspect that the CRU emails give ample support to the idea to see all other symptoms of groupthink as well?

 

[DanP]

Sorry Evo, editted my post. Figured it was implied, and would be understood, that since I was posting it in such a way that it is my opinion.


In my opinion the only way to effect these people is through the general population. An impact will never be made without societies support. I guess it would be possible for the 'men who swing the cash' to suddenly change their opinion from cash-generating based on what the population wants/needs to supporting climate research and advocating safer practises however I feel currently switching to this mode will come at a great risk(financially). It would be different obviously if all groups suddenly shifted support but this probably won't happen, at least for quite some time.


Exactly the problem, "their money are better pored into lobby...", it should be noted that better is a subjective term. This is what I was getting at above, it won't provide the financial security or even more importantly in this case, political security (for individauls or groups) that other options can give...

What makes you think you know better than the industry leaders what's good for them ?
What makes you think you can see better than them what leads to "political security" and
"financial security" ?
What makes you think that even if they know the truth they will give a damn ?

 

[sylas]

That said, please be respectful of others' opinions, even when vehemently disagreeing with those opinions. Personal attacks and disparaging remarks are unacceptable.

Can I just remind *everyone* of this remark made when the thread was reopened?

Most of the last couple of pages has been opinion, and it would be better if we could all be respectful of opinions we disagree with.

It's not particularly helpful to disparage any opinion as daring to think better than everyone and every organization with a contrary view. People sometimes have views on what's a good way to organize a government or a society. Argue against the opinion, or express your own opinion; but I suggest we don't just aim attacks at a person for daring to have that opinion.

I think some opinions are pretty dashed silly. But I still respect a person who holds them, and suggest it is best to aim a response at the opinion itself, substantively. not at the person for holding it. It you disagree with someone, say why. Give YOUR view. If you can make other views look a bit silly, well done. It you can do that without actually declaring them to be silly yourself, but by giving reasons other readers will find persuasive, you get an epic win.

I've not been particularly active recently as I am not really concerned to change everyone else's opinion for them, or express my own yet again as most folks can probably guess it.

I'll probably add more stuff eventually; but I'll be trying to keep it in the way of information or sources that other people can use, if they like, as we all try to work through what we think of things.

Cheers all -- sylas

 

[skypunter]

Al Gore popularized the climate crisis.
The cancellation of his appearance at Copenhagen says a lot about the political ramifications of the liberated CRU files.
You just cannot ignore these things.

 

[Sorry!]

What makes you think you know better than the industry leaders what's good for them ?
What makes you think you can see better than them what leads to "political security" and
"financial security" ?
What makes you think that even if they know the truth they will give a damn ?

A couple classes in Economics, world issues, and of course here come that word again... research. Lol

I don't know better than the industry leaders 'what's good for them' but I do know that they WILL do what's 'good for themselves' and that's what they've been doing.

I can't see better than them for what leads to political and financial security but I do know that they will do things hopeful of gaining them. Which they have been doing.

I never said if they 'knew the truth they would care about it' I said that if the society looked into the research themselves and took a personal stance on the matter then we would see the big financial guns of the world get 'more' involved, either way (against or pro AGW or even just climate change in general).

The governments can only do so much through politics to try and 'force' so to speak global warming in the minds of the society, I personally think that this is not a good move for climate research just because many people are really skeptical of most of the stuff that governments say, especially when tax money is involved with multiple countries. They should be too.

Climate chaneg is also not a mature science really, so it quite clearly has its flaws and faults, is showing to the public a theory which changes every now and then which we are spending quite a large amount of money on going to lead to more people trusting the theory? or going against it?

 

[Sorry!]

Sorry! I respect your dedication for a good cause, but could you agree with the following?

1: A Mindguard is trying to guard the partyline
2: A Skeptic is trying to guard reality.

No I can't agree with that, skeptics are normally a really good thing for science and keep everything in check. However many skeptics about climate research do not try to 'keep everything in check'.

For instance would you say that skeptics of perpetual motion are 'keeping things in check'? I mean like it is possible that some day in the future perpetual motion somehow gets developed by one of these people but are these skeptics at this particular moment in time of perpetual motion just trying to keep things in check? In my opinion they are not; they are doing something else and it's not very useful at all.

Compare for instance:Now, whose car would you buy?

Well I would obviously buy only the car from the second company, because they allowed me to come buy it... the other group pushed me away so how could I have ever even decided to buy a car?

This is a good comparison to what's occurring however even better would be that the first company is 'pushing you away' not because of restrictions put by the car manufacturer on what the consumer can know about the car. Say when you buy a car back in the day and you wanted the company selling it to give you the repair manual for the car including the car schematics. Now this is not allowed according to the manufacturer. You have to buy the manual directly from them for $500. Yet, you keep badgering the company, continuously even though they have told you no. Then finally they just push you away... is it fair to accuse them being 'unfair' compared to the second company who possibly is selling other cars who has no rules from the manufacturer? Or is breaking the rules? I don't know in this case...

This is pretty much more closely what has happened with the CRU, as far as I know, but raw data was still leaked a few months ago so let's see what the skeptics make of it? I don't know if the person is 'allowed' to use the data since it's not his and it was leaked but I'm certain if he can he will. You can follow this person (Steve McIntyre, a Canadian and I think he has potential to be a 'good' skeptic of climate research) at their website:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
(Other skeptics do post stuff too though)

Oh incidentely, mindguarding is #8 symptom of http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm also #4 symptom of groupthink.

Could you also understand that some people might suspect that the CRU emails give ample support to the idea to see all other symptoms of groupthink as well?

Can you agree with me that accusations of group think can only be known with available data? What this means is that group think can only truly be applied after the fact, when all known variables are made public. Right now it would not be fair game to apply these terms to either party, I only did this to the skeptics because everyone saying that climate research involves group think. It just clarifies that the terms can go both ways we do not have enough data however to say definitively that one is guilty so we should probably just assume they are not... remain skeptical over the results sure but I wouldn't go pointing the 'group think' fingers just yet.

 

[Galteeth]

Climate change, you guys

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1134

 

[DanP]

For instance would you say that skeptics of perpetual motion are 'keeping things in check'? I mean like it is possible that some day in the future perpetual motion somehow gets developed by one of these people but are these skeptics at this particular moment in time of perpetual motion just trying to keep things in check? In my opinion they are not; they are doing something else and it's not very useful at all.Well I would obviously buy only the car from the second company, because they allowed me to come buy it... the other group pushed me away so how could I have ever even decided to buy a car?

This is a good comparison to what's occurring however even better would be that the first company is 'pushing you away' not because of restrictions put by the car manufacturer on what the consumer can know about the car. Say when you buy a car back in the day and you wanted the company selling it to give you the repair manual for the car including the car schematics. Now this is not allowed according to the manufacturer. You have to buy the manual directly from them for $500. Yet, you keep badgering the company, continuously even though they have told you no. Then finally they just push you away... is it fair to accuse them being 'unfair' compared to the second company who possibly is selling other cars who has no rules from the manufacturer? Or is breaking the rules? I don't know in this case...

The car manufacturer doesn't claim Apocalypse is upon us. And the suckers would give me free a 500 USD product if I offer to buy a 50k car. I guarantee that. If you buy a 500k one, theyll let you do the sales manager too :P

 

[Sorry!]

The car manufacturer doesn't claim Apocalypse is upon us. And the suckers would give me free a 500 USD product if I offer to buy a 50k car. I guarantee that.

First off: Your trolling is excessive. (Whoever claim anything about 'apocalypses' or anything of the sort.)

Secondly: If you are trying to imply that climate researchers imply that 'apocalypse is upon us' then again, RESEARCH. Regardless, what Andre is talking about is that it's a COMPARISON between how skeptics and climate researchers apparently act (I'm assuming he is only comparing to CRU because this analogy does not hold up against other research groups)

Thirdly: completely off topic but if the manufacturer are the only people who sell the $500 product then how exactly are you going to say 'the suckers would give me it free' when they can't? Maybe they have a copy but I highly doubt they are going to give it to you and risk losing their company. (In this situation it would be possible for them to obviously give it to you for free and just not tell anyone but with the CRU how do you suppose they give data secretively...)

This is like buying a movie and making copies to give away for free to all your friends, it's illegal. Regardless of if it happens in reality because the CRU can not do that as I'm sure you can deduce why.

 

[DanP]

First off: Your trolling is excessive. (Whoever claim anything about 'apocalypses' or anything of the sort.)

My "trolling" is not for you to judge. This board is moderated.

Secondly: If you are trying to imply that climate researchers imply that 'apocalypse is upon us' then again, RESEARCH. Regardless, what Andre is talking about is that it's a COMPARISON between how skeptics and climate researchers apparently act (I'm assuming he is only comparing to CRU because this analogy does not hold up against other research groups)

Again, politics is not about research. Its about gaining support by any means.

Thirdly: completely off topic but if the manufacturer are the only people who sell the $500 product then how exactly are you going to say 'the suckers would give me it free' when they can't? Maybe they have a copy but I highly doubt they are going to give it to you and risk losing their company. (In this situation it would be possible for them to obviously give it to you for free and just not tell anyone but with the CRU how do you suppose they give data secretively...)

Becuase a 500 USD product as you made it, it's not "secretive". They (the seller) would simply buy the 500 USD product from manufacturer and hand it to me free. Why ? Because they want my 50k :P

This is like buying a movie and making copies to give away for free to all your friends, it's illegal. Regardless of if it happens in reality because the CRU can not do that as I'm sure you can deduce why.

It is not the legality of handing out data obtained under NDA or various licenses clauses which is discussed. What is discussed is whatever the data has been manipulated, destroyed and conclusions drawn are false, and whatever hiding under some NDAs
is nothing more than the convenient thing to do.

 

[Evo]

The thread is going downhill again. This is politics, it's not about the science, it's about the ethical and political issues surrounding climate change. I'm going to ask everyone *again* to please not drag the thread off topic.

I think Al Gore canceling his speech in Copenhagen is a very interesting turn of events.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit."

One would think that Gore would show his support at this time, not withdraw.

Here is the news item from two sources on opposite sides.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/gore-cancels-climate-lect_n_379645.html

 

[Sorry!]

Again, politics is not about research. Its about gaining support by any means.

Oh, really? I never knew that. I guess I'll go around making political claims about science without knowing the science. Give me a second.

Becuase a 500 USD product as you made it, it's not "secretive". They (the seller) would simply buy the 500 USD product from manufacturer and hand it to me free. Why ? Because they want my 50k :P

Yes... because this is possible in the situation I discussed. Your free to make up your own analogies just don't try to twist other peoples.

It is not the legality of handing out data obtained under NDA or various licenses clauses which is discussed. What is discussed is whatever the data has been manipulated, destroyed and conclusions drawn are false, and whatever hiding under some NDAs
is nothing more than the convenient thing to do.

Oh really, yet another thing I had no idea about. What I'm taking from this message here is that 'no one really wants to obtain the data, they just want to blame the CRU for manipulating, destroying, and drawing false conclusions and whatever'. I'm going to assume you have a source prepared to prove that they did 'manipulate, destroy, and draw false conclusions' from the data... You should post it, now...

This is politics right!

 

[DanP]

The thread is going downhill again. This is politics, it's not about the science, it's about the ethical and political issues surrounding climate change. I'm going to ask everyone *again* to please not drag the thread off topic.

I think Al Gore canceling his speech in Copenhagen is a very interesting turn of events. One would think that Gore would show his support at this time, not withdraw.

Here is the news item from two sources on opposite sides.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/

Evo, can you please re-post one of the links ? They appear to identical.

 

[Sorry!]

From that article Evo,

News that British and American scientists had manipulated global warming statistics to suit their agenda was made public two weeks ago after their personal e-mails were posted on the Internet.

Did I miss something that happened from Last week to today? It's bizarre that a news company would come out and say this. Papers around where I live sometimes show their bias but never like that, maybe in an editorial or something. When I read that I drew a complete blank that's such a 'downer' for me... just wow.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGkx5ED3BxWScLRJuzhDFRm9wAzwD9CC3J780 From AP.

 

[Evo]

Evo, can you please re-post one of the links ? They appear to identical.

Ooops, fixed, thanks.

 

[Hepth]

From that article Evo,



Did I miss something that happened from Last week to today? It's bizarre that a news company would come out and say this. Papers around where I live sometimes show their bias but never like that, maybe in an editorial or something. When I read that I drew a complete blank that's such a 'downer' for me... just wow.

Ah, but NOTICE! They're not claiming there was manipulation, but rather "NEWS OF" manipulation. Which there probably was :)

 

[DanP]

Oh, really? I never knew that. I guess I'll go around making political claims about science without knowing the science. Give me a second.

Sure you do. Its money which spins the world, not the science.

Yes... because this is possible in the situation I discussed. Your free to make up your own analogies just don't try to twist other peoples.

Now you understand why your comparison with a car selling business is void of any value whatsoever.

Oh really, yet another thing I had no idea about. What I'm taking from this message here is that 'no one really wants to obtain the data, they just want to blame the CRU for manipulating, destroying, and drawing false conclusions and whatever'. I'm going to assume you have a source prepared to prove that they did 'manipulate, destroy, and draw false conclusions' from the data... You should post it, now...

I don't have any source to prove they did manipulated data, drawing false conclusions and so on. It is really not important to anyone, which is a player of any consequence in this game and has views opposed to CRU. The doubt over their actions is enough to be used as political leverage.

 

[Sorry!]

Ah, but NOTICE! They're not claiming there was manipulation, but rather "NEWS OF" manipulation. Which there probably was :)

Well they said 'news THAT manipulation yada yada was made public'. I understand they are saying 'news was made public' but the fact they said 'news THAT' implies that what the news is about actually had occured. (The manipulation) It just kind of blew my mind when I read it. I've since recovered.

@@Well Dan, unless you can start citing sources or explaining why your so hostile towards CRU then you should stop because this is part of the guidelines. Like yeah your opinion is important but if you have no way of backing it up... that's not politics.

Oh and BTW, I noticed you think that the car analogy was mine, this is how I can tell you are not reading everything in context to understand what's going on and instead just jumping the gun at what I've posted. Andre made the analogy and I've editted it. If you don't like it that's nice...

As well if you think that because you claim that they will give you the schematics to the brand new car you bought doesn't mean anything. It's just that, a claim, with no support, like pretty much everything else that you've been saying.

 

[Proton Soup]

Oh really, yet another thing I had no idea about. What I'm taking from this message here is that 'no one really wants to obtain the data, they just want to blame the CRU for manipulating, destroying, and drawing false conclusions and whatever'. I'm going to assume you have a source prepared to prove that they did 'manipulate, destroy, and draw false conclusions' from the data... You should post it, now...

This is politics right!

i think a bigger question is whether you can prove they've done anything at all.

 

[D H]

Again, politics is not about research. Its about gaining support by any means.

This is an important point. Politicians of all ilk do not care a whole lot about the truth. Most of them are/were lawyers for whom manipulating the truth is their daily job and to whom scientists are a bunch of useful idiots.============

Did I miss something that happened from Last week to today?

Perhaps you've been too busy making excuses for what happened a couple of weeks ago.

It's bizarre that a news company would come out and say this. Papers around where I live sometimes show their bias but never like that, maybe in an editorial or something.

Really? So those articles that start out with headlines like "stolen emails", that use terms like denier or denialist to describe anyone who dares to question the supposed consensus are not biased?

 

[DanP]

@@Well Dan, unless you can start citing sources or explaining why your so hostile towards CRU then you should stop because this is part of the guidelines. Like yeah your opinion is important but if you have no way of backing it up... that's not politics.
.

I don't have to "cite sources" or "peer reviewed research" to explain my political stance. It is my constitutional right. Pherhapes you would like to stand at next elections with a gun in my face and ask for "explanations" and "sources" when I exercise my right to vote ?

Oh and BTW, I noticed you think that the car analogy was mine, this is how I can tell you are not reading everything in context to understand what's going on and instead just jumping the gun at what I've posted. Andre made the analogy and I've editted it. If you don't like it that's nice...
.

Perhaps you shouldn't bother to "edit" Andre. He is pretty much articulate in his posts, I will respond to his statements if I find necessary.

And now, you are a psychic and you did read my mind and determined I am not reading in context or the whole thread ?

As well if you think that because you claim that they will give you the schematics to the brand new car you bought doesn't mean anything. It's just that, a claim, with no support, like pretty much everything else that you've been saying.

Yes, they would. And you'll have to live with that.

 

[Sorry!]

Well I could continue to post references to raw data and reports etc. Evo will have a fit I think though... I guess I can see where this thread is now going though. Let's all make baseless accusations and say it's politics! Ok then... have fun.

 

[turbo]

The thread is going downhill again. This is politics, it's not about the science, it's about the ethical and political issues surrounding climate change. I'm going to ask everyone *again* to please not drag the thread off topic.

I think Al Gore canceling his speech in Copenhagen is a very interesting turn of events. One would think that Gore would show his support at this time, not withdraw.

Here is the news item from two sources on opposite sides.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/gore-cancels-climate-lect_n_379645.html

According to the NYT, the event that Gore canceled was a tickets-only speech for the public promoting his upcoming book. That hardly qualifies as a betrayal of the AGW crowd, and he is making other appearances during the conference. I wouldn't read too much into it.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/gore-cancels-copenhagen-book-event/

 

[turbo]

There is a tremendous amount of opinion floating around here, much of it seemingly based on ideology and not science, and that is disheartening on a science forum, because the only real tools that we have for detecting and measuring and mapping changes in climate are scientific.

Climate change is real. We are losing polar ice, glaciers, and mountain snow-caps. This is not just "weather". Losing such masses of fresh water long-term is indicative of something more than that.

The question before us is a 3-parter, IMO:
1)Is climate change driven by the activities of man?
2)If so, to what extent?
3)If not, are we humans just "along for the ride" in a natural cycle?

I don't believe that the AGW folks have nailed down their argument #1, though the preponderance of evidence seems to rest with them at this time.

Given the complexity of climate and the diffuse nature of pollutants, etc, the answer to #2 may be out of our reach.

It is for certain that the anti-AGW have not made a rational scientific argument for #3, which is interesting. Instead, they have relied on political appeals, nay-saying, and some level of skullduggery to make their case.

Given the stakes involved, you would expect OPEC, refiners, power companies, gas and oil companies to fund climate research on a scale at least equivalent to that at CRU and other research centers to scientifically advance their case that carbon emissions are not causing climate change. Why have they not done so, or have they failed to disprove the IPCC reports and are silent about that failure? Using the model of the tobacco industry, we can see how big businesses can fund "research" -real or not- to publicly refute real science that threatens their bottom line.

It's OK to be skeptical, and try to evaluate the research products as well as we can, with the information available to us. It's not OK to accuse groups of people of collusion, fraud, etc, just because you disagree with their findings.

 

[Proton Soup]

turbo, I'm not really skeptical about climate change per se. the most compelling argument I've seen so far comes from Ruddiman ( i think ), which shows that the Earth was due for slipping into another ice age about the time man developed agriculture. and thus it is methane, not CO2, which is the source of the "problem".

CO2 i see as a proxy for energy usage. energy usage is a proxy for GDPs. and taxation. OPEC has no reason to care because oil use will not go down. new markets will emerge in other nations that aren't willing to sabotage their economies. CO2 usage will not go down. period. it's all really about who gets it, and who profits from it.