Climategate

[Zeal]

Wes

The hockey stick graph abolished completely the medieval warm period too. Some e-mails even talk about how they planned the fraud about the two arguments (tree-rings and warm period).

About the flawed part i thought you were talking about something else sorry, but you still have a point.

Actually many more scientists are claiming the Sun is actually a main force drive, but its still in middle of the study at best, altho we see some correlations it is not certain how much influence the sun does produce (if it is the main or not).

But many studies support it does influence, at what point thats the question.

I hope i dont have to cite to you wes hehe

Edit:

On the models: http://sppiblog.org/news/fun-with-computer-models-dont-bother

from there you have a explained essay from the author (link not shown directly tho - if u have problems finding it tell me) and he gives you two more references (that i still have not consulted tho).

Edit: going off topic but i found another topic on that site that was funny but sums it up the real agenda :p http://sppiblog.org/videos/in-case-anyone-doubts-the-global-warming-political-agenda

 

[Sander]

you fail right on that last paragraph.

it is completely irrelevant to the background of someone making statements if those statements are backed up by non-questioned sources.

i have zero background on market research. i have no education at all on economics. i do not nor have i ever worked in retail in any fashion.

fallout 3 and COD:MW 2 sold millions.

by your argument, that statement is a complete fallacy and in fact is wrong for 2 reasons.

1) i cite no source
2) i have no background

if you want to question specific statements, ask for sources on those specific statements.

and no, i will not cite a source proving that FO3 and CODMW2 sold millions.

What does this have to do with my note that B failing doesn't reflect on its sources?

And secondly, you'd have a point if there were an overwhelming majority of market researchers claiming that those 2 games did not sell as much, because then there's reason to believe the people who actually have expertise on the subject. Because that's what's happening with this debate: you are some random internet dude trying to debunk the work of experts, and all you're giving us to go on is basically 'cause I said so.' And that is why you should be citing sources, not telling people 'well go do the research, you'll totally see I'm right!' That's not a productive attitude and it won't convince a soul, since all you're doing is shouting without backing yourself up in any way. It also makes it extremely hard for people to actually argue with you, as there is no way to critique any of your sources.

Add to that that you citing no sources doesn't make you wrong, it makes you unconvincing and it makes it very hard for anyone to try to verify what you are saying.

the primary argument for those in favor of AGW or global climate change of what will happen if a severe global reduction in human generated GHGs does not happen is based upon what the models say. especially the IPCC. when they say the global average temperature will go up by 5-7 degrees in 50 years, that is based upon the models. when they say what will happen to areas around the globe, that is based upon the models. whenever someone claims what will happen, it is based on the models.

if the models are not accurate, neither is their prediction for what will happen.

These are week-to-week models, right? So, again I ask, what does this have to do with the overall picture which can be determined separately from detailed, week-to-week models?
A 95% accurate week-to-week model means that they have a pretty good understanding of how clouds work, but due to chaos theory it's hard to predict accurately far into the future. But a good understanding of the principles behind weather patterns means that long-term tendencies and basic cause and effect should not be a problem.

Again, a simple analogy is seasonal weather: I don't need to know exact weather patterns to know that it's going to be cold in winter. Similarly, you don't need detailed week-to-week cloud movement to know

remind that Homo Sappiens Sappiens already lived in higher temperatures that the hypotetical 2100 one and blossomed with the heat. (like all other forms of life)

Well, so? The biggest problem with global warming is the rising sea level, and the fact that humanity blossomed in a completely different world with a much smaller, more mobile population (and hence not hindered by coastal areas flooding) has nothing to do with the problem of flooding now. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the details of this debate, and I don't have the time or inclination to do a lot of research into this subject, but my main problems are with the way this debate is conducted here and elsewhere: it is often nothing more than a shouting match and at most some dubious sources are cited.

And you remedied that by citing a website that itself references many sources and justifies its logic by means other than 'cause I said so', it's easy to read. Thank you for that.

Interestingly, the article you linked about the hockey stick graph only enforces its point, while it debunks the graph itself.

 

[TheWesDude]

the sun is the #1 determinant of global temperature.


oh, and i wont cite a source to back that up. if you need a source for that, you do not understand the greenhouse effect.

 

[Sander]

the sun is the #1 determinant of global temperature.


oh, and i wont cite a source to back that up. if you need a source for that, you do not understand the greenhouse effect.

I see you still don't get it. You're trying to deflect from all of your much more detailed claims that, again, you cite no source for whatsoever by making a claim that is hardly controversial and then saying 'Hey I don't need a source for that, do I?'
No, you don't need to cite sources for obvious facts. But if you ever want to convince anyone, citing sources makes you more convincing, makes you reviewable and provides people with a way to come to the same conclusion themselves.

Seeing as you obstinately refuse to support your own statements, I can basically only conclude that you are arguing for the sake of argument.

 

[Zeal]

Well, so? The biggest problem with global warming is the rising sea level, and the fact that humanity blossomed in a completely different world with a much smaller, more mobile population (and hence not hindered by coastal areas flooding) has nothing to do with the problem of flooding now. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the details of this debate, and I don't have the time or inclination to do a lot of research into this subject, but my main problems are with the way this debate is conducted here and elsewhere: it is often nothing more than a shouting match and at most some dubious sources are cited.

And you remedied that by citing a website that itself references many sources and justifies its logic by means other than 'cause I said so', it's easy to read. Thank you for that.

Interestingly, the article you linked about the hockey stick graph only enforces its point, while it debunks the graph itself.

Regarding the sea level, let me re-post:

again the former president of INQUA and the other scientists deserve quote credit:

http://web.letras.up.pt/asaraujo/Trabalhos/Sea level changes.pdf

http://web.letras.up.pt/asaraujo/Trabalhos/Sea level changes.pdf


more 15 cm at best by 2100, i dont think its a problem... maybe we shouldnt deflorstate so much around mega centralized urban areas tho...

Regarding the article, i was trying to cover myself from biased attacks, since what we were discussing was the graph itself and i tried to point again that climategate doesnt reveal new data, just proved what independant scientists were saying, and that the science is far from settled.

If you watch the video, like i said, there you have it explained to the full extent of the fraud. You can also read the climategate emails.

Edit. Anyway i believe we are conducting ourselfs in a civilized manner at least, but tend to agree with you about the shouting part on most other occasions. I respect your opinions and i welcome dialogue, it sharpens our dialect (i mean reasoning, critical thinking, the art Plato tell us to rise ourselfs from the cave, dunno how it is spelled in english) at least (when conducted in a ciz manner), plus we can re-test our beliefs.

Regarding belief and you saying you dont keep much informed, i get the feeling for most part of people (not talking about you, i dont know you personnaly) i know that support AGW apocalypse scenario is mostly about belief, especially since their information is very limited, repetitive and biased provided by mainstream media.

I have been an "ecologist" for some time now, maybe thats why i have more interest on the subject.

the sun is the #1 determinant of global temperature.


oh, and i wont cite a source to back that up. if you need a source for that, you do not understand the greenhouse effect.

the number of scientists supporting the thesis is growing, in a large number yes, but its still not conclusive and accurate values. I mean the weight it has in short and long term influence on climate models. - You forgetting the oceans and the clouds for instance. - just trying to point its not "settled science".

Ofc it is in a daily basis...

 

[Arr0nax]

Here are some facts you couln't reasonably argue against :

1) Temperatures are rising
2) Permafrost is melting
3) Sea levels are rising
4) CO2 augments greenhouse effect
5) We can reduce CO2 emissions
6) We are relying on limited fossil fuels in our crazy CO2 release fest

Now the ONLY part we aren't sure about, is how much warming does our CO2 production cause.
"How much" as in, we're sure it HAS an effect, we just don't know to what extent.

Besides
1) The so-called "trick" controversy has been explained and debunked. It's just about making the real temperatures figure on the graph. Nothing a scientist should be ashamed off, really.

To cite a comment I found somewhere :
"This study has nothing to do with measuring the temperature change. All this study shows is that the Little Ice Age was due to a 10% decrease in the Gulf Stream. That makes it a local shifting of heat from one place to another. In case you can't figure out the import of that on your own, it means global net temperatures wouldn't have changed. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH"
A more trustworthy explanation can be found here
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225804.300

2) telegraph.co.uk should not really be taken as a credible source on ANY controversial subject

 

[TheWesDude]

1) actually after 1998 we entered into a cooling period that is estimated to last 20-30 years.

2) unknown

3) there are places where sea level has dropped upwards of 30 cm since 1970, i dont happen to have a link to that documentary

4) correct, but at an unknown factor. current models currently have CO2 effect factored at 2.5% which is why they estimate a 1.4 C increase, yet we only experienced a 0.6 C increase from 1970 to 1998. if everything else is right, that would mean that 2.5% is wrong. unfortunately there is so much other stuff wrong in the modeling ability, that while we do know that 2.5% is wrong, due to inability to properly model clouds and water vapor, we do not know how far off the mark the 2.5% is.

5) not responsibly

6) correct, we should replace our fossil fuel infastructure with nuclear power. only problem is that under normal useage, a nuclear powered electric car would run anywhere from 10-200 years between "fill ups"

7) the "hockey stick" graph was sourced from data measured around northern california using primarily tree rings. it was not gathered from global data, only local data.

the current version you see now ( the updated version ) now has a small ice age, but smothed it over to show less impact than previous data.

and tree rings have been largely debunked period as being any kind of indicator of temperature.

 

[Kahgan]

1) actually after 1998 we entered into a cooling period that is estimated to last 20-30 years.

Again, North Atlantic oscilliation

4) correct, but at an unknown factor. current models currently have CO2 effect factored at 2.5% which is why they estimate a 1.4 C increase, yet we only experienced a 0.6 C increase from 1970 to 1998. if everything else is right, that would mean that 2.5% is wrong. unfortunately there is so much other stuff wrong in the modeling ability, that while we do know that 2.5% is wrong, due to inability to properly model clouds and water vapor, we do not know how far off the mark the 2.5% is.

What happened between 1970 and 1998 is irrelevant (especially since you're just tossing out numbers from thin air, even after earlier stating that that was just what you did), as the most long term measurements we have are from late 1800 until today, that's over a hundred years. And they have shown a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees C. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ) That is independent of the short-term variations in temperatures like the cold/warm periods lasting a relatively short time.

 

[Zeal]

Lol wikipedia references, thats priceless

 

[TheWesDude]

kahgan....

1)

why you cite a wiki reference to a localized effect in response to a global cooling phase is a mystery to me

2)

yea, IPCC cites a .6 C temperature raise, wikipedia cites a .7 C temperature raise... that is a huge fucking difference aint it...


oh, and as an aside...

And they have shown a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees C. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ) That is independent of the short-term variations in temperatures like the cold/warm periods lasting a relatively short time.

here is another problem i have with global warming thinkers...

1) the planet has been around for more than 1 billion years

2) we have data from ice cores and other archaelogical evidence that goes back at most 500-700 million years.

3) there is evidence that the plant can handle without a problem the CO2 and warming we have now, it has delt with over 6,000 PPM CO2. the problem with "global warming" is not the effect it has on the planet, its the effect it has on humans. the planet can handle it no problem, its humans that will be discomforted.

4) the increase in GHGs attributed to humans started in the 1800s, less than 250 years. in a system that has worked for more than a billion. and has handled much worse measurements in GHGs.


that is my biggest problem. the planet can handle it. it has handled much higher #s. and during those periods they were naturally occuring.

the problem with "global warming" is not that the planet cannot handle it, or that it will create any difficulty with the planet. its that humans may not like how the planet reacts to the changes.

its not a concern over the planet, its a selfish concern. you may blame big business and governements for being unsympathetic, but at least they are honest about their goals, more money. these people feigning concern over the planet when its really a concern of how will it affect me...

 

[Starseeker]

lol, personally, I think the reason why nobody ever gets anything done (Kyoto? Copenhagen?) is because the people who don't believe it exist incites farther religious fervor from the green peace people to convince them otherwise and meanwhile, nobody is dealing with some of the problems of modern culture/consumption.

I think I have said it earlier that we can't really depend on people's altruism to save themselves. I think we are kinda hardwired to realize short term gains and pleasures over any longer term pains and losses.

I am more worried about plastics/trash accumulation and the diminishing of natural resources. There is also the higher than average amount of pharmaceuticals in our water supply. Estrogen is found in high lvls due to industrial farms and it's already causing some problems for some young boys.

Of course, doom and gloom talks and pretty ptless. If there is no more oil tomorrow or if there is something cheaper/better, then we will all move on. If the rare earth used in modern electronics is exhausted (China is restricting exports now), people will Need to either find replacements or new sources. Survival necessity and economical incentives will move people, not protests, movies and hoping/praying 6 billion people change their behavior for the common good collectively.

 

[Kahgan]

Lol wikipedia references, thats priceless

At least I'm citing sources, and you are completely free to check them and, if you can, disprove them. And I don't really feel I need to find any 100% fool-proof expert specialist leet scientist sources to argue with people who are just tossing out random numbers, and even admitting to do so.

kahgan....

why you cite a wiki reference to a localized effect in response to a global cooling phase is a mystery to me

Did you read the article? And besides, it was meant to show that there can be short term variations in temperature and still be an overall increase over a long term.

yea, IPCC cites a .6 C temperature raise, wikipedia cites a .7 C temperature raise... that is a huge fucking difference aint it...

Did I say it was?

And they have shown a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees C. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ) That is independent of the short-term variations in temperatures like the cold/warm periods lasting a relatively short time.

here is another problem i have with global warming thinkers...

1) the planet has been around for more than 1 billion years

2) we have data from ice cores and other archaelogical evidence that goes back at most 500-700 million years.

3) there is evidence that the plant can handle without a problem the CO2 and warming we have now, it has delt with over 6,000 PPM CO2. the problem with "global warming" is not the effect it has on the planet, its the effect it has on humans. the planet can handle it no problem, its humans that will be discomforted.

4) the increase in GHGs attributed to humans started in the 1800s, less than 250 years. in a system that has worked for more than a billion. and has handled much worse measurements in GHGs.


that is my biggest problem. the planet can handle it. it has handled much higher #s. and during those periods they were naturally occuring.

the problem with "global warming" is not that the planet cannot handle it, or that it will create any difficulty with the planet. its that humans may not like how the planet reacts to the changes.

Humans have only existed for a small fraction of the time the planet has been around, and just because the planet has been different in the past, it doesn't mean that we should knowingly fuck up the environment that sustains the life of not only humans, but billions of other species. That, and we have no idea if the post-fossil fuel age is anything humanity can survive, and we do not know the full extent of global warming.

its not a concern over the planet, its a selfish concern. you may blame big business and governements for being unsympathetic, but at least they are honest about their goals, more money. these people feigning concern over the planet when its really a concern of how will it affect me...

To be honest, yes I'm concerned about my own future, but I'm also concerned about the future of other forms of life. I don't think it's okay that a lot of other species are getting extinct because we want to live spoiled unsustainable lives.

 

[Zeal]

Lol wikipedia references, thats priceless

At least I'm citing sources, and you are completely free to check them and, if you can, disprove them. And I don't really feel I need to find any 100% fool-proof expert specialist leet scientist sources to argue with people who are just tossing out random numbers, and even admitting to do so.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx#ixzz0aApCEqRz

Note: im not saying this disproves, afterall its wikipedia, everyone already knew since its start, its not just about this subject.

But i stress we must be carefull from opinion manipulation...

Especially the young generations who are so susceptible and the "future" (and use wikipedia as main source for school...), thats why Mao (Stalin too) paid special attention to children...

 

[TheWesDude]

khagan, if we pumped GHGs into the atmosphere, we would not be fucking up the planet.


in all honesty, we would be taking the planet closer to its historical averages.

for millions of years the GHGs have been slowly declining. all we are doing is returning it back to where it was.


and the only fesible replacement for fossil fuels is nuclear power.

are you in favor of replacing all our fossil fuel use with nuclear forms of power? if not, there is no responsible alternative.

 

[34thcell]

khagan, if we pumped GHGs into the atmosphere, we would not be fucking up the planet.

...

for millions of years the GHGs have been slowly declining. all we are doing is returning it back to where it was.

Look, you don't know what you're talking about, they don't know what they're talking about, NO ONE HERE KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Personally, I have my doubts about global warming, it seems like just another fear spree to control people. However, I'm hardly in a position to question its scientific merit. If the scientific consensus is that we're screwed then, apart from shouting CONSPIRACY, there's not much I can add to the debate.

In particular, I dislike how much this issue seems to be tied to ideaology.

 

[Kahgan]

khagan, if we pumped GHGs into the atmosphere, we would not be fucking up the planet.

We are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And we do not know if that is a smart thing to do. We know that it might be screwing up our environment, and the possibility should be enough to make us think twice.

are you in favor of replacing all our fossil fuel use with nuclear forms of power? if not, there is no responsible alternative.

I'm not in favor of nuclear power, I'm in favor of using less resources. If there are no realistic alternative to fossil fuel then we should consider the possibility that our current way of life is unsustainable. But of course it's hard for people to give up their cars and iphones and xboxes and computers and stuff.

 

[Zeal]

I'm not in favor of nuclear power, I'm in favor of using less resources. If there are no realistic alternative to fossil fuel then we should consider the possibility that our current way of life is unsustainable. But of course it's hard for people to give up their cars and iphones and xboxes and computers and stuff.

Why not, due to the waste? Yes it creates toxic waste but would have eleminate many other inderect waste, summing it all up, i dont know if its more or less tho. But one thing is certain, 3rd world countries would get access to cheap energy, and thus become a place wy more ecological.


I remember Starseeker saying "you should smell the air in Beijing". Well, thats because in 2nd/3rd (altho many would say china can now be considered a 1st world country) there are almost no ecological concerns. Poluted rives, toxic/waste dumps, etc, you dont see in 1st world countries who already have filters in factories to filter the POLLUTANTS (co2 is not one of them), and severe legislation for polluters.

What we need imho is efficiency tho, i see many products/energy go to waste. We dont have to consume less, to give away our stuff, even we were in the real danger IPCC tell us, no, just be efficient.

 

[TheWesDude]

actually, if we accepted nuclear power and started replacing our infrastructure with it, then our lifestyle is sustainable.

with no other power source is our lifestyle possible.

that is how it works.

fossil fuels, nuclear, or nothing.

period.

biodisel? not even close to viable.

wind? maybe in 50 years. although they are getting closer with every breakthrough. would still displace millions of people in the US to convert us over to wind.

hydroelectric? only place left to put turbines is in the ocean. which would screw the oceans up if you put enough in.

solar? one of the worst methods of generating electricity.


without cheap energy, a high density population is non-sustainable. same with every developed country.

oh, and with faced with the reality of using fossil fuels, using nuclear, or letting millions of your citizens die, which option do you think governments worldwide would pick.

 

[Lynette]

Uff, this sounds like some propaganda speech from the 30´s

 

[alec]

I completely agree with TheWesDude.

And that's after reading up on global warming for close to 6 years now.

It's ridiculously funny how Michael Moore, uh, I mean Al Gore was able to brainwash pretty much the whole Western world.

It's ridiculously funny to see how meteorologists - who can not predict 'normal' weather patterns for much more than a couple of days in the future - do however seem to possess the knowledge to predict catastrophic meteorologic events up to 100 years in the future.

The whole predicted global warming cataclysm is a brilliant scam to:
- scare the happy-go-lucky boys and gals out there (not much left to scare people with nowadays)
- to reinvent industry (new lightbulbs, new cars, new 'energy', ka-ching, ka-ching)
- to save the downward spiralling economy
- to prevent third world countries their much needed industrialization
- to take your MONEY!

And by Gawd, a brilliant scheme it is. Even during the late nineties them green activists were considered an annoying minority. Their ships were sunk, they were doomed to harrass students and Oxfam shoppers to get any money at all. But then there were some smart politicians who thought: "Hey... wait a fecking minute... these lies that they are telling, they are similar to all the other brilliant lies we've been spoonfeeding the populace for centuries... we should enlist them, support them and get RICH, RICH, RICH!"
So here you have a president who is fucking up the globe, he's old school, the whole world loathes him, but a large part of the world supports his adversary. Let's make him a martyr, let's make him loose the elections and use him (his background is ideal) to feed the populace a new myth.
And thus was born An Inconvenient Truth.
Since the Holocaust don't work no more (why the fuck should people from the 21st century feel guilty for something that happened so long ago?), we'll give them a horrible prediction: if you do not invest in a new green society (THE AGE OF AQUARIUS, woo-hoo), your kids will drown!

And thus started the biggest hoax ever imagined. And it's a brilliant hoax because no matter what happens, the people will believe it.
- if THE SUN ('cause trust me they know it's the sun) lowers its activity, well, we can tell people that it is thanks to their efforts (expensive wind mills, bio-fuels, blahblahblah) that we are saved
- if THE SUN starts farting even more, we'll tell them we were too late, yeah, too little, too late, which is more guilt resting on the shoulders of the common people and we all know: more guilt, more power to politicians, more MONEY.

Check this baby out, it dominates life on Earth and has done so since the beginning of our solar system:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9xL3mw8tI&NR=1[/youtube]

The sun doesn't care for the human fungus that lives on the surface of this small, sad and lonely planet.

You want a good reason to ABOLISH cars, ABOLISH heavy industry, ABOLISH our consumerism? It's making us sick, not the planet. Everything we do on this ball, everything we ever did, it was already here to begin with, maybe in a different form, but that's nothing Earth can't handle. 100 000 years from now all traces of plastic will be erased, gone. Humans have always been troubled by delusions of grandeur, but the real king is out there in space, high up in the heavens. That's our real God, not the nincompoops humans invented.

The sun doesn't know that we are here and if the sun wants to burp a heavy one in our direction, the sun will do so and there ain't no windmill, no hybrid car, no sad hippy sod that's gonna prevent it from happening.

Hah. Don't you just love the sun? I know I do.