There is a distinct difference between scientific debate like this, no matter how heated and outright fraud, which is what climategate is about.flying_eagle wrote:Regarding the gloating over climate gate, seems like there are errors on both sides of this argument folks:
Solar magnetic activity (sun spots) and cosmic rays.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... ut2004.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... t2003a.pdf
Eat that GW believers!
Re: Only two sides
Depends what you mean by wait. If by wait you mean avoid the immediate expenditure of 10's of trillions of pounds by completely banning all fossil fuel power plant henceforth, I would agree emphatically and also say yes we can afford to wait.bcglorf wrote: To me the important political question is can we afford to wait for more and better data. I can't see anything in the science that doesn't lead to an overwhelming yes as the answer.
If by wait, you mean not even giving the tiniest support to alternate carbon free energy sources, I would say no we can't afford to wait. Alternative energy won't appear out of nowhere overnight, you need to build up some capacity, expertise and skills.
The ideal balance, is to fund CO2 free energy research and maintain a manufacturing capacity sufficient to provide 5-10% of our energy without burning fossil fuels and use fossil fuels to provide the remaining 90%, then if the science becomes settled we can quickly ramp up this capacity and deliver a rapid response. Without any capacity whatsoever, a rapid response will be impossible. 5-10% would be unlikely to be much of a drag on the economy as the cheapest renewables and nuclear are only a factor of 2 or so more expensive than fossil fuels as things stand.
I believe this is the current policy which most governments are following in practice at the moment in anycase.
Waiting
The ideal balance, is to fund CO2 free energy research and maintain a manufacturing capacity sufficient to provide 5-10% of our energy without burning fossil fuels and use fossil fuels to provide the remaining 90%, then if the science becomes settled we can quickly ramp up this capacity and deliver a rapid response.
I guess I see that ideal as no different from just waiting without creating any special initiatives. We know we can replace our entire coal plant infrastructure with nukes if we really have to and/or want to. We already have a huge interest and investment in electric car technology. Put those two together and human CO2 emissions can be nearly eliminated. Electric cars running off a nuclear powered grid gets rid of what, 80% of the industrialized world's CO2 emissions?
I guess I see that ideal as no different from just waiting without creating any special initiatives. We know we can replace our entire coal plant infrastructure with nukes if we really have to and/or want to. We already have a huge interest and investment in electric car technology. Put those two together and human CO2 emissions can be nearly eliminated. Electric cars running off a nuclear powered grid gets rid of what, 80% of the industrialized world's CO2 emissions?
80%? No, space heating hot water etc. for buildings accounts for about 50% of Greenhouse gas emissions. Passive housing and the design of super well insulated houses during the construction phase from the ground up is another important initiative and one which can reduce the energy comsumption of houses by around 80%. The turnover time of housing is unfortunately 100 years.
In principle heating houses electrically could be an option, but its 2 or three times less efficient then burning gas directly and twice as expensive, assuming nuclear powered electricity is twice as expensive as gas, that makes nuclear electrical heating 4 times as expensive. Although using heat pumps you can regain that factor of 3 or so. Having said that Heat pumps take capital expenditure.
Regarding nukes though, there are still questions regarding the supply of available U-235 and breeder technology is not mature yet. Additionally, if we let the nuclear industry shrink and dissappear as we seem to be doing now, ressurecting it could take valuable time.
Thin film solar is also promising.
In principle heating houses electrically could be an option, but its 2 or three times less efficient then burning gas directly and twice as expensive, assuming nuclear powered electricity is twice as expensive as gas, that makes nuclear electrical heating 4 times as expensive. Although using heat pumps you can regain that factor of 3 or so. Having said that Heat pumps take capital expenditure.
Regarding nukes though, there are still questions regarding the supply of available U-235 and breeder technology is not mature yet. Additionally, if we let the nuclear industry shrink and dissappear as we seem to be doing now, ressurecting it could take valuable time.
Thin film solar is also promising.
Nope
I live in Canada, and it's minus 40 something. People's homes are split about half and half between natural gas heating, and electric. The new high efficiency electric furnaces are actually cheaper to run because natural gas prices are so high already, no need for CO2 emissions as a dominant reason as economics are already taking care of that one.jmc wrote:80%? No, space heating hot water etc. for buildings accounts for about 50% of Greenhouse gas emissions. Passive housing and the design of super well insulated houses during the construction phase from the ground up is another important initiative and one which can reduce the energy comsumption of houses by around 80%. The turnover time of housing is unfortunately 100 years.
In principle heating houses electrically could be an option, but its 2 or three times less efficient then burning gas directly and twice as expensive, assuming nuclear powered electricity is twice as expensive as gas, that makes nuclear electrical heating 4 times as expensive. Although using heat pumps you can regain that factor of 3 or so. Having said that Heat pumps take capital expenditure.
Regarding nukes though, there are still questions regarding the supply of available U-235 and breeder technology is not mature yet. Additionally, if we let the nuclear industry shrink and dissappear as we seem to be doing now, ressurecting it could take valuable time.
Thin film solar is also promising.
-
flying_eagle
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:14 pm
I believe the above papers show that manipulation can occur on either side of an argument just like the climategate claim being used now.Jccarlton wrote:There is a distinct difference between scientific debate like this, no matter how heated and outright fraud, which is what climategate is about.flying_eagle wrote:Regarding the gloating over climate gate, seems like there are errors on both sides of this argument folks:
Solar magnetic activity (sun spots) and cosmic rays.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... ut2004.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... t2003a.pdf
As far as you fraud claim,
That is a matter of personal opinion. If you want to claim fraud, then any scientific analysis that supports your own opinion might also subject to potential fraud (normally we call that bias not politically or legally charged words you want to use) as you could be guilty of just selecting the results that favor your opinion. So you can expect us to rely on who is guilty of what in the court of your opinion. You are not in a position to pass judgment on other people's motives.
I knew someone would try to use that lame point to support their viewpoint while trying to discredit others.
-
alexjrgreen
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
- Location: UK
Where human beings are concerned, many barrels have a bad apple or two. Equally, any human being taken at random can be induced to do really stupid things under enough pressure. So any argument that relies on my side being angels and your side being devils is going to collide with reality.
Science is bigger than that and ultimately rises above it given a century or two. But then, perhaps I'm being optimistic...
Science is bigger than that and ultimately rises above it given a century or two. But then, perhaps I'm being optimistic...
Ars artis est celare artem.
Agreed
Science shouldn't therefore rely on the credentials or authority of a person, it should go back to the data. So all we need to do is go back and confirm the work Jones is accused of having a biased hand in working worth by repeating his work starting from his original data. The only thing that could stop us is if parts of the data somehow got lost or went missing....flying_eagle wrote:I believe the above papers show that manipulation can occur on either side of an argument just like the climategate claim being used now.Jccarlton wrote:There is a distinct difference between scientific debate like this, no matter how heated and outright fraud, which is what climategate is about.flying_eagle wrote:Regarding the gloating over climate gate, seems like there are errors on both sides of this argument folks:
Solar magnetic activity (sun spots) and cosmic rays.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... ut2004.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... t2003a.pdf
As far as you fraud claim,
That is a matter of personal opinion. If you want to claim fraud, then any scientific analysis that supports your own opinion might also subject to potential fraud (normally we call that bias not politically or legally charged words you want to use) as you could be guilty of just selecting the results that favor your opinion. So you can expect us to rely on who is guilty of what in the court of your opinion. You are not in a position to pass judgment on other people's motives.
I knew someone would try to use that lame point to support their viewpoint while trying to discredit others.
If one 'fraud' is being turned into public policy and the other is not, which should I concern myself with? Or are you suggesting that I should be willing to ignore the first because of the second?flying_eagle wrote:I believe the above papers show that manipulation can occur on either side of an argument just like the climategate claim being used now.
I really don't think the argument that the 'other side' has instances of fraud does much to mitigate the significance of question of fraud within the IPCC, a group that is trying to affect WORLDWIDE policy. Really, how can you reject the implications of this without knowing more? By simply saying that the other side cheats too? Seems a little shallow for something this big, doesn't it?
regards
Copenhagen climate change conference: Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency. <You go, girl!>
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: <Cool. Here come the facts.> 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, <OK, it is warmer than say, a hundred years ago. That sounds like a long time. I can't wait for some more facts.> the Arctic ice-cap is melting <Hmmm... didn't they just say that it has been warming. Wouldn't I expect this to be true. I can't really count that as another fact can I? Hold on, hold on. Facts are coming to tie this together I am sure> and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc <That's not a fact. Foretaste? That's like a Nostradamous kinda fact>. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. <Is that a fact? I think that one is a lie> Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries <Wow. Now we have been doing it for centuries> , has consequences that will endure for all time <Wow. We are like gods now> and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. <If we tamed it in say 17 days from now, that wouldn't be enough?> We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone. <Read as paid for by the rich countries>
The science is complex but the facts are clear. <That is the most ridiculous comment I have ever heard> The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, <Did they say parch?> turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, <Displaced? Can you call it being displaced if it takes generations to do it?> whole nations drowned by the sea. <This is the kinda crap that pisses people off. I can't even think of anything amusing about this one> The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based. <Muddied the waters. Good enough reason to find out more isn't it?>
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. <Is it ever NOT the united states fault. I can hear Obama now, "Look, sorry about our obstructionism"> Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so. <Thank the Lord!>
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. <Wait. I thought we only had 14 days. Now we can wait till next year. Stop confusing me, OK?> As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”
At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels. <I thought the concern was CO2 rising? Now it's mercury? I am so confused.>
Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.
Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Social justice <And there it is. Social justice. The US must DIG DEEP to help the poorer countries. That is the worlds idea of social justice. Nevermind that we have always been a world leader in our generosity. Now we will be directed to do so. By who? The poor nations who will be doing the receiving? And all in the name of this 'complex science' with "clear facts". This is BS. Take that!> demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. <Now we must take flights that cost more than a taxi ride to the airport that, in turn, cost more than a taxi ride to the airport use to cost. Got it.> We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. <No we won't. Since we are being told how to shop eat and travel, clearly we won't have to be more intelligent about it. You will need to be more intelligent for us.> We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. <Cool, here comes the good stuff we get> Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels. <that was a let down. I didn't get any good stuff.>
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation. <The US put a man on the moon. The US split an atom. The prior was all ours, don't claim it for yourselves. The latter saved your asses and your welcome. I respectfully request that you not use our historic efforts as a basis for your new ridiculous demands upon us.>
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”. <Do not quote Lincoln on this. He also talked about not tearing down the house of your neighbor but rather about building your own. This is so WAY off base>
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. <World newspapers suck! There, I said it> If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.
<I started counting facts. I counted one. It is getting warmer.>
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency. <You go, girl!>
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: <Cool. Here come the facts.> 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, <OK, it is warmer than say, a hundred years ago. That sounds like a long time. I can't wait for some more facts.> the Arctic ice-cap is melting <Hmmm... didn't they just say that it has been warming. Wouldn't I expect this to be true. I can't really count that as another fact can I? Hold on, hold on. Facts are coming to tie this together I am sure> and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc <That's not a fact. Foretaste? That's like a Nostradamous kinda fact>. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. <Is that a fact? I think that one is a lie> Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries <Wow. Now we have been doing it for centuries> , has consequences that will endure for all time <Wow. We are like gods now> and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. <If we tamed it in say 17 days from now, that wouldn't be enough?> We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone. <Read as paid for by the rich countries>
The science is complex but the facts are clear. <That is the most ridiculous comment I have ever heard> The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, <Did they say parch?> turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, <Displaced? Can you call it being displaced if it takes generations to do it?> whole nations drowned by the sea. <This is the kinda crap that pisses people off. I can't even think of anything amusing about this one> The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based. <Muddied the waters. Good enough reason to find out more isn't it?>
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. <Is it ever NOT the united states fault. I can hear Obama now, "Look, sorry about our obstructionism"> Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so. <Thank the Lord!>
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. <Wait. I thought we only had 14 days. Now we can wait till next year. Stop confusing me, OK?> As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”
At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels. <I thought the concern was CO2 rising? Now it's mercury? I am so confused.>
Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.
Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Social justice <And there it is. Social justice. The US must DIG DEEP to help the poorer countries. That is the worlds idea of social justice. Nevermind that we have always been a world leader in our generosity. Now we will be directed to do so. By who? The poor nations who will be doing the receiving? And all in the name of this 'complex science' with "clear facts". This is BS. Take that!> demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. <Now we must take flights that cost more than a taxi ride to the airport that, in turn, cost more than a taxi ride to the airport use to cost. Got it.> We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. <No we won't. Since we are being told how to shop eat and travel, clearly we won't have to be more intelligent about it. You will need to be more intelligent for us.> We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. <Cool, here comes the good stuff we get> Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels. <that was a let down. I didn't get any good stuff.>
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation. <The US put a man on the moon. The US split an atom. The prior was all ours, don't claim it for yourselves. The latter saved your asses and your welcome. I respectfully request that you not use our historic efforts as a basis for your new ridiculous demands upon us.>
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”. <Do not quote Lincoln on this. He also talked about not tearing down the house of your neighbor but rather about building your own. This is so WAY off base>
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. <World newspapers suck! There, I said it> If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.
<I started counting facts. I counted one. It is getting warmer.>
-
flying_eagle
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:14 pm
I believe the author of the first paper made a similar point about the exploitation of the graphs of Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen regarding the public discourse on the subject of how it is solar activity discovered by them and not greenhouse gases in a 2001 TV documentary, “The Climate Conflict,” and how they fight a stubborn scientific establishment represented by the IPCC.seedload wrote:If one 'fraud' is being turned into public policy and the other is not, which should I concern myself with? Or are you suggesting that I should be willing to ignore the first because of the second?flying_eagle wrote:I believe the above papers show that manipulation can occur on either side of an argument just like the climategate claim being used now.
I really don't think the argument that the 'other side' has instances of fraud does much to mitigate the significance of question of fraud within the IPCC, a group that is trying to affect WORLDWIDE policy. Really, how can you reject the implications of this without knowing more? By simply saying that the other side cheats too? Seems a little shallow for something this big, doesn't it?
regards
Sounds like some of the same opinions expressed here on this forum. You see this slices both ways. There are those that want to educate us that their opinion is correct when they present their biased scientific findings and yes sometimes manipulated graphs. Both sides of AGW are using the public forum for their own benefit while using biased or manipulated data. Shallow? I guess that will be left to who writes history to decide.
-
flying_eagle
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:14 pm
Solar and GHG both affect the earth's climate. Natural variability and anthropogenic forcing are both correct. Any argument that tries to exclude one or diminish the other is bound to be ultimately found to be a false claim. Due to the complexity of the problem of climate and the measured changes that are happening, the lack of full understanding is self evident. I applaud those that are willing to have an open mind and correlate and improve their scientific understanding of this. Since that process is the natural process that science undergoes, a few critical answers might have to do with by what degree of understanding need be done in order to act? If tipping points in positive feedback systems are present and abrupt climate change as demonstrated by paleoclimate data suggests, what time frame would prove too costly regarding delay of inaction? Just a few questions that many research centers are working on. In the US, we have 6 national labs working on the impacts program just to try to answer some of these questions. Worldwide there is research from many disciplines trying to answer these and other questions. We should remain open to their research work for our own edification before we speak. And yes, I agree, it is worthwhile doing your own research also. But I will admit, I'm no expert, yet I have an opinion also.
Well, yes, I obviously do. I have said as much. Just a couple replies ago I said I skeptical of the solar forcing theory. In this thread I was critical of MSimon for his apparent support of ALL alternative evidence. I definitely think a lot of skeptical information is terribly and unfairly presented similarly to the way that Gore terribly presented the AGW side of things. So, yes, I do. The question is, do you?flying_eagle wrote:You see this slices both ways.
You can't defend those emails. You can't defend the code. You can't. Pointing at others as dishonest doesn't matter. The climategate information cannot be defended.
I don't have to claim anything. A careful reading of the emails clearly demonstrate scientific malfeasance and deception:flying_eagle wrote:I believe the above papers show that manipulation can occur on either side of an argument just like the climategate claim being used now.Jccarlton wrote:There is a distinct difference between scientific debate like this, no matter how heated and outright fraud, which is what climategate is about.flying_eagle wrote:Regarding the gloating over climate gate, seems like there are errors on both sides of this argument folks:
Solar magnetic activity (sun spots) and cosmic rays.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... ut2004.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... t2003a.pdf
As far as you fraud claim,
That is a matter of personal opinion. If you want to claim fraud, then any scientific analysis that supports your own opinion might also subject to potential fraud (normally we call that bias not politically or legally charged words you want to use) as you could be guilty of just selecting the results that favor your opinion. So you can expect us to rely on who is guilty of what in the court of your opinion. You are not in a position to pass judgment on other people's motives.
I knew someone would try to use that lame point to support their viewpoint while trying to discredit others.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
An examination of the code clearly shows deliberate adjusting of the data.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/ ... proof.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ ... ate_r.html
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
The fact is that Jones, Wigley, Mann, Hansen, Schmidt and others created a massive scientific fraud and perpetrated multiple and consistent acts to continue the fraud and avoid the fraud's discovery at all costs. In doing this they suppressed scientific evidence that was contrary to the fraud, smeared scientists and journals who wrote skeptical papers and destroyed data to prevent FOI requests from people trying to examine their results. They were aided by interested public figures and officials who saw the fraud as a way to get resources without actually having to provide anything in return. AGW was and is nothing more than the Progressives attempting to forward an agenda that had been discredited by history and events. The AGW science has always been a scam. We now know just how big. I don't have to try to discredit Mann, Jones etal. They have done it to themselves