or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Climate Change Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Climate Change Thread - Page 2

post #51 of 393
Where'd you find the quoted part? The first link has nothing to do with it.
post #52 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Well, the CRU has no legs to stand on. With the released emails combined with this... they're done in the scientific community.

I still see people believing in Anthropological Global Warming, because as I said years ago on here... it's a religion based on faith instead of facts.
" Scientists return fire at skeptics in 'destroyed data' dispute "
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3

Quote:
Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."

Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."
post #53 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
Where'd you find the quoted part? The first link has nothing to do with it.
That was wierd, one time when I edited it it just showed up as two links... anywho, fixed it and here is the link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece
post #54 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
" Scientists return fire at skeptics in 'destroyed data' dispute "
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3
Mine is from today, which story came after yesterday's story where they said they would release all the data they have...

I'll go with the one that isn't from October 14th. Nice try though.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MW...armPeriod.html

here's a link to data also. It shows the Midieval warm period which their model (which is now bunk) does not have and they are not able to reproduce.

ETA - It's worth noting that the data is still out there, that is not the question. The question is can they reproduce the results... How these things work:

Data gets collected and input into modeling computers. These computers are like virtual worlds and the data that is input doesn't give an accurate picture. It's like a jigsaw puzzle.. you have to fill in the blanks as best you can by looking at the pieces and filling in the 'gaps' to make a picture. Now, the people who fill in these gaps have an education (usually) to do this but there is a lot of manual equations and variables that are required to get these results and some of the data is anomalous and needs to be excluded while some of is nebulous in nature and needs some firming up. By and large, everyone since the creation of the notion of anthropological global warming has requested to see the data (meaning the raw data and the equations used on them) for their own eyes. These are not naifs nor unqualified people but those with backgrounds or degrees in fields directly related to the earths climate... the data was never released.
post #55 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
I'll go with the one that isn't from October 14th. Nice try though.
Did you miss the fact that the Times article is quoting the "old" article (statements) I linked to? I linked to it so people can read the full explanation from the people being quoted. How that makes that article irrelevant now is puzzling ... I guess you should complain to the times for reporting on old news ...

Times ...
Quote:
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
Website on 10/24/2009
Quote:
We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Note that the Times article seems to say this is a recent admission, and as Snaikeye pointed out this is not a new admission at all.
post #56 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Did you miss the fact that the Times article is quoting the "old" article (statements) I linked to? I linked to it so people can read the full explanation from the people being quoted. How that makes that article irrelevant now is puzzling ... I guess you should complain to the times for reporting on old news ...

Times ...


Website on 10/24/2009


Note that the Times article seems to say this is a recent admission, and as Snaikeye pointed out this is not a new admission at all.
OK, I acutually took time to read your article instead of instantly dismissing it based on the date.

I'll talk to you a bit about what it is you are refering to...

In the article I linked to, yesterday's article.

Quote:
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
This admission follows the leaking... that happened after the october 14th email.

As to your link.

Quote:
The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.
Now, if you read my post I said:

Quote:
some of the data is anomalous and needs to be excluded
That is what he is talking about in your October link. He is claiming that only 5% of the data collected from the weather stations were excluded from the models they created however he does not elude as to which data, which stations etc... are excluded and that is what is needed to reproduce the results. If they had that data, they would simply release it instead of admitting they dumped most of it when they changed buildings in the story that came out today.

Now, as to the 'station' data.


Here is an example of a weather station that will give bad data... and people have gone out on their own and documented these bad weather stations(including myself), stations that the world has grown around and resulted in some bad readings. As to the historical impact these stations have, it is pretty easy to determine when the station became compromised from construction records, when did a road or building crop up around it.. when was an air conditioner installed, etc... but it is a tremendous undertaking.

ETA:

Here is an archive to the project about documenting weather stations. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
post #57 of 393
The quoted admission is EXACTLY the same as the one publicly posted on Oct 14, they also said the admission is on their website. There is no new admission actually.

Read carefully.
post #58 of 393
The Times hasn't been keeping up. The website "admission" and the Roger Pielke accusation of lost data and are both months old.
post #59 of 393

Australia's Parliament defeats global warming bill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/...mate_australia

This seems like an ill omen, as it looked like there was momentum building for a positive outcome to the Copenhagen event.
post #60 of 393
Thread Starter 
The Washington Post does what appears to me to be a good job of summarizing the e-mail scandal and its ramifications.
post #61 of 393
Thread Starter 
post #62 of 393
post #63 of 393
Was Russian secret service behind leak of climate-change emails?

FSB accused of paying hackers to discredit scientists after stolen correspondence traced to server in Siberia

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-1835502.html
post #64 of 393
Wow, the fact that a major oil producing nation might try to discredit climatologists is really shocking to me. Next thing you know, the Saudi government will turn out to be climate change 'skeptics'.

And here I thought that all the challenges to the climate change consensus came from free thinking individuals instead of entrenched power players in the energy business.

Of course this could turn out to be nonsense, but it always fascinated me how some people will instantly jump on the existence of some Dan Brown level worldwide scientific conspiracy while at the same time giving some of the world's shadiest governments and corporations the benefit of the doubt.
post #65 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Wow, the fact that a major oil producing nation might try to discredit climatologists is really shocking to me. Next thing you know, the Saudi government will turn out to be climate change 'skeptics'.
Shocking!

"Saudi Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html

Quote:
COPENHAGEN — Saudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into “climategate” Monday, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations beginning here.

“We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations,” the Saudi Arabian negotiator said.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has promised to investigate the scandals, although its chairman said Monday that it provided no basis for questioning the science behind global warming.

But the Saudi negotiator told delegates that “the level of confidence is certainty shaken
post #66 of 393
What the hell? Is the world upside down?

If even oil producing monarchies are doubting climate change, I may have to reconsider my stance too.
post #67 of 393
Well, they wouldn't have gotten so rich being dumbasses, you know?
post #68 of 393
post #69 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
So the worlds richest countries are going to cover their arses at the expense of the poorer ones as we all knew they would, the talks unravel completely as we all suspected they might, and humanity gets the climate it deserves in the end.

...and I for one would like to welcome our new ant overlords and remind them I'd be very good at convincing others to labour in their underground sugar caves.
post #70 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Rall
Both sides of the "debate" are liars.

The energy company-financed stooges are barely worthy of contempt, much less serious rebuttal. Their claims have been addressed and thoroughly debunked, over and over, for decades. Cut from the same toxic cloth as those who collected paychecks from tobacco companies to testify that smoking was safe, they are to be pitied, reviled and, with a little luck, imprisoned after the revolution.

More problematic—and embodied by the Guardian quote above—is the Big Lie of climate change: the implication that there's still time to stave off environmental disaster.

"The clock has ticked down to zero," said Yvo de Boer, the United Nations climate chief. No. That happened years ago.

One interested party has been left out of the news from Copenhagen: scientists. "Quietly in public, loudly in private, climate scientists everywhere are saying the same thing: it's over," reported George Monblot in the Guardian from Copenhagen. "The years in which more than 2°C [above average temperatures at the start of the Industrial Revolution] of global warming could have been prevented have passed, the opportunities squandered by denial and delay. On current trajectories we'll be lucky to get away with 4°C. Mitigation (limiting greenhouse gas pollution) has failed; now we must adapt to what nature sends our way. If we can."

Leading scientists like James Hansen say the maximum safe upper level for the concentration of CO2 particles in air is 350 parts per million. We're currently at 387. According to a study recently cited in Time magazine, we could ban automobiles and the internal combustion engine and abolish all industrial production, worldwide, and it would still take at least 900 years for CO2 levels to drop back below the 350 ppm tipping point.
Link here

Also, something that interested me. Apparently the EPA can now regulate carbon emissions without needing congress' approvial. All Obama has to do is give the word and the EPA can go to work on carbon polluters. Of Course, he is a pussy and doesn't have any balls.
post #71 of 393
What's surprising to me is that this news may surprise some people out there...

Quote:
A document leaked from the UN secretariat says the world will warm by about 3 degrees Celsius this century if the greenhouse gas cuts being proposed at Copenhagen are followed through, exposing the huge gap between the rhetoric of world leaders at the conference and climate science.

Scientists say the 3-degree rise would most likely have severe consequences on human development for centuries, and might well trigger "tipping points" that cause uncontrollable climate change.

The document, marked "confidential very initial draft - do not distribute", shows the pledges made to date would fall well short of the stated aim of world leaders, including that of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to hold world temperature rises to the safer level of 2 degrees.
Quote:
"What this shows, to me, is that the world leaders think political reality is more important than scientific reality," Mr McKibben said from Copenhagen. "Somehow they think they are going to be able to outmanoeuvre physics."
post #72 of 393
Our society, or rather, societies, are not built to deal with issues that span more than a few years, and require at least SOME sort of leap of faith.

I am not the least bit surprised this entire thing seems to go bust. Mankind pulling it together only works in movies, or during alien attacks. For all the rest, we arent able to put aside egoism and short-term goals. Its how we are wired. Which is pathetic, because we well understand the CONCEPT of long-term goals, altruism and simple fucking common sense, but a majority of us choses not to act on said knowledge.
post #73 of 393
The situation all but guarantees that we'll end up trying radical geoengineering to stave things off in the decades to come.

If you have the time, I highly recommend this talk by Stewart Brand.

http://longnow.org/seminars/02009/oc...inking-green/#

Quote:
This talk launches Brand's new book: Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.* His argument is that taking account of the emerging global forces of climate change, urbanization, and biotechnology forces a rethink of some traditional environmental positions.*

Cities are Green, with huge room for improvement.* Nuclear power is Green, with better still to come.* Genetic engineering is Green and shows potentially revolutionary promise.* Direct intervention in the climate---geoengineering---may be necessary.* The classic environmental project of restoring natural systems has to step up in scale and deepen the quality of its science and engineering.
post #74 of 393
So we need to continue to grow in economic strength, and develop new tech, I am good with that.

The last thing we needed to do was set up reeducation camps and dismantle cities like the Cambodians did after their victory back in the seventies. That worked out so well before.

We're always going to need an economic base that's strong enough to come up with this tech everyone wants to use to save us. We can't go back to a pre-industrial economy and not expect billions to die of starvation and disease. I know there are some Earth Firsters out there that advocate that sort of thing, but I'd like to think those are few and far between.
post #75 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conservative Neighbor
12-18 inches in Philadelphia IN DECEMBER!!! First time since the 1960's. EXPLAIN THAT, AL GORE!
^^^My conservative neighbor who had a snow blower.

Seriously, it must suck to be Al Gore whenever it snows.
post #76 of 393
This makes me feel slightly better about the coming climate-pocalypse

A German reporter said flat out "You're Rediculous" to Inhofe's face. Hooray!
post #77 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
This makes me feel slightly better about the coming climate-pocalypse

A German reporter said flat out "You're Rediculous" to Inhofe's face. Hooray!
Sounds like everyone received a cold reception at the big meeting, including Obama. Getting blown off by the Chinese spoke volumes about how the current pecking order has changed.
post #78 of 393
The dingbat weighs in via Tweeter:

Quote:
SarahPalinUSA

Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng
I can't believe that thing was ever that close to power.

Ions. Son of a bitch.
post #79 of 393
She doesn't need spelling. She's a maverick.
post #80 of 393
Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

Quote:
PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
I read about this study last month. Devoted pet owners are unyieldingly crazy in their own special way (I know this because I am one) and they will not change, so I wonder what they really expect people to do.
post #81 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
The dingbat weighs in via Tweeter:



I can't believe that thing was ever that close to power.

Ions. Son of a bitch.
Gosh, I wonder what Joe Lieberman thinks of string theory. I'd like to hear Dick Cheney chime in with his views on quantum electrodynamics, too.
post #82 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
The dingbat weighs in via Tweeter:



I can't believe that thing was ever that close to power.

Ions. Son of a bitch.
That makes me actually really fucking mad. The McCain people KNEW she was a retard (as we are now learning as they open up to the press), yet they worked to decieve the American people and put her in a position of ultimate power.

That in my book is treason.

"Country First"? ROFLMAO

Quote:
Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng

Anyone who writes like that for public consumption is not fit to run for dog catcher.
post #83 of 393
I heard that the Hackers were working for Russia's new KGB. Any truth to that?

The thing is that in my opinion, conservatives should be in favor of limiting carbon because it takes money away from Oil Rich Terror Sponsers like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
post #84 of 393
Thread Starter 
post #85 of 393
Now that China seems to pick up the mantle of being the primary obstacle to a consensus about the required action, I wonder if the disproportionate percentage of 'climate skeptics' in the US general population will go down. Because I feel a lot of them were mostly reacting to the perceived 'US bashing' that followed every such conference and didn't have any problems with the theory.
post #86 of 393
RE: Sniake -

Slap your forehead, sir. Oil is a globally traded fungible commodity. It doesn't matter where we get the 'majority' of our oil. The fact that we're the largest consumer of oil on the planet places significant pressure on the globally traded oil price, which in turn massively inflates the size of the 'Arab dick' we must suck (a tasteless metaphor, sure, but when Saudi Arabia is taking that money, along with the billions in direct aid we give them, and funding Salafist schools around the world, its close enough). It is functionally impossible to become independent of 'foreign oil' so long as oil is traded on a global market and the majority of that oil is produced in the Middle East (hence the fun graphic YT posted, that you slapped down in your ignorance).
post #87 of 393
No, they won't. The Libertarians still oppose industrial regulation for ideological reasons, and the Republicans are still in the unenviable position of having to defend their allegiance to their energy-industry patrons. Rather than defending poor business practices they pretend such practices are not a problem. It's rather similar to defending policies of torture by claiming torture is really just frat hijinks.
post #88 of 393
A lot of the Euro-based media is going with the line that China was just using the meeting to make a statement that they are the only superpower around, and could give a shit about the rest.
post #89 of 393
Yeah, anyone who has played Fallout knows how this turns out. Count me in on the market for bomb shelters.

Which sort of seems to be the underlying point of climate change that no one ever brings up. Amidst all the disruptions of weather patterns, crop cycles, and things like that, nation-states are going to be under extreme pressure. Global conflict seems to be the most likely outcome of that.
post #90 of 393
post #91 of 393
That an error has been made public and corrected is just more proof of fraud and conspiracy.

It's not an ouch, it's how things are supposed to work.
post #92 of 393
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pervis42 View Post
A lot of the Euro-based media is going with the line that China was just using the meeting to make a statement that they are the only superpower around, and could give a shit about the rest.
Yeah, the China outlook isn't half as rosy as some of us had hoped it would be.
post #93 of 393
People are surprised China wanted to prove what a douchey bully it could be now it's the one of the biggest dogs in the yard?

I'm shocked - SHOCKED I tell you!
post #94 of 393
China so far has been great at managing to combine the worst parts of capitalism and communism into a potent, pungent and toxic mix of shit. And they're not afraid to share their handiwork with the world.

I just wish us over here in Europe could get over our ideological hang ups and complexes and get our shit together.
post #95 of 393
Quote:
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0ddRxN6xl
NASA has deleted their references to the melting glaciers also, because you know... they were independant and did their own work on everything.
post #96 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
NASA has deleted their references to the melting glaciers also, because you know... they were independant and did their own work on everything.
Of course, this does not mean the glaciers aren't in trouble.

You're clear about that and didn't mean to imply otherwise, right?
post #97 of 393
Osama thinks climate change is real.

Now can we do something about this issue? Because if we end up drowning and starving half the worlds poor people all because we CHOSE not to avert this disaster, we're going to have a million Osamas to worry about.

The dunderheadedness of the Republicans who were jeering at mentions of climate change in the SOTU confounds me
post #98 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Osama thinks climate change is real.

Now can we do something about this issue? Because if we end up drowning and starving half the worlds poor people all because we CHOSE not to avert this disaster, we're going to have a million Osamas to worry about.
Well, I guess that's settled. Osama and Gore agree--two of the great minds of their generation.

Don't worry about it being our fault we're making more Obamas by somehow causing their destruction. They hated us hundreds of years before we build the car engine, they don't need new excuses to want to kill us all. The old ones will do just fine.
post #99 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post
Well, I guess that's settled. Osama and Gore agree--two of the great minds of their generation.

Don't worry about it being our fault we're making more Obamas by somehow causing their destruction. They hated us hundreds of years before we build the car engine, they don't need new excuses to want to kill us all. The old ones will do just fine.
I am saying that climate change will radicalize previously non radical populations.

Not that it's going to make muslims nuttier. Though it will.


PS watch your Osama/Obamas. I will assume that was unintentional.
post #100 of 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post

PS watch your Osama/Obamas. I will assume that was unintentional.
Yep, it was.

I throw myself to the mercy of Christina Hendricks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Climate Change Thread