Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An inconvenient truth.... or lie?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 31 of 191 (538351)
12-05-2009 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Buzsaw
12-05-2009 11:07 PM


RE: Malicious Emails
Buzsaw writes:
How do you deduce that into concluding that Christians are liars...
Ah, but I never accused christians of being liars. I merely used it as an analogy to help you understand where I have a problem with in this issue. You're just pointing to other people who talk about the emails and say "see? it's a massive fraud, he says so..." By this same logic, I can simply say christians are liars and then other people could prove that christians are liars by pointing to my opinion. See the parallel?
I've cited the data, including a sampling of actual emails from mainline secularist tabloids.
No, you haven't. You've included links to blogs which link to other blogs which link to other blogs.
It's been a long time rule of this forum that we don't debate websites here, let alone blogs.
Notice that I haven't actually made any claim regarding this issue. All I have done is ask (not politely) you to give us quotes directly from these emails so we can discuss them. If these emails obviously point to an international plot to commit fraud, it should be easy for you to provide a few of these quotes (in context) directly from the emails and have a field day rubbing them in our faces.
Is this such an unreasonable request to make?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 12-05-2009 11:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-05-2009 11:39 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 12-06-2009 1:32 AM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 32 of 191 (538352)
12-05-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taz
12-05-2009 11:34 PM


RE: Malicious Emails
Notice that I haven't actually made any claim regarding this issue. All I have done is ask (not politely) you to give us quotes directly from these emails so we can discuss them. If these emails obviously point to an international plot to commit fraud, it should be easy for you to provide a few of these quotes (in context) directly from the emails and have a field day rubbing them in our faces.
I have yet to see the entirity of any of these quotes in context with the rest of the text in these emails either. I would require that the whole, entire email be included before discussing what these quotes actually mean. Otherwise it is mere quote-mining out of context.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 12-05-2009 11:34 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 191 (538353)
12-06-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
12-05-2009 8:16 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
Peg writes:
Our activity does have an effect on the atmosphere, that was adequately discovered when the areosole cans, containing CFC's, we produced caused a gaping hole in the Ozone layer over australia
i think we can be fairly certain that our activity can and does affect the atmosphere
Hi Peg. Given the suspect email revelations of some major climate scientists which they have evidently purposely destroyed, how can we know to what extent areosole cans have caused gaping holes in the Ozone layer? Volcanoes produce great amounts of aerosole which would seem logically to account for much of the high altitude aerosol.
Regarding our other activities, there is evidence that since the 1950s the high cirrus cloudiness has increased, particularly over the dark ocean surface. Given jet airline travel has increased globally from the 1950s some climatologists say that perhaps they have been a factor in that. However, due to the albedo effect, more cloudiness can have a cooling effect in certain situations. The albedo, which has to do with how much of the sun's heat is reflected from the earth is higher from white clouds than on sunny days when more of the rays are absorbed on on the darker land and ocean surface.
From what I've read, it is rather difficult to know for sure how much the albedo effect factors in, since tracking it all would not be feasible.
That's how I understand it. Hopefully one of the astute climatology members will weigh in if I have this wrong.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 12-05-2009 8:16 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 2:11 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 34 of 191 (538356)
12-06-2009 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
12-05-2009 10:56 PM


RE: Malicious Emails
Buzsaw writes:
If you folks choose to disbelieve the reportings of the WSJ, the London Times, London Telegraph and other tabloids, that's your perrogative. I've cited some stuff which you can choose to reject or accept as reliable. I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing about whether these journalists are objective or not who have reported on it.
Unless the journalists also happen to be scientists, why should we trust their knowledge on the subject over that of knowledgable experts? And why does the possible fraud of a small number of scientists necessarily mean that the entire scientific community is fraudulent?
Do you really expect the media tabloids to be objective on this issue?
Don't you find it a little odd that out of over a thousand e-mails and documents, only a few have been presented as evidence of fraud? And usually out of context.
And as a sidenote:
Buzsaw writes:
BTW, I have often cited the clear implications in Biblical prophecies that global warming will happen upon the planet in the end time of the Gentile empires but according to Revelation 16, the cause will be mostly from the sun.
*Sarcasm time*
Surely, if the Bible was referring to anthropogenic global warming it would have simply said so:
quote:
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire, because people had filled the atmosphere with CO2 and thus defiled God's creation. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, but they refused to repent and glorify him and pursue alternative fuel strategies.
*End of sarcasm*
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 12-05-2009 10:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 12-06-2009 1:51 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 191 (538357)
12-06-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taz
12-05-2009 11:34 PM


More Emails
Taz writes:
Ah, but I never accused christians of being liars. I merely used it as an analogy to help you understand where I have a problem with in this issue. You're just pointing to other people who talk about the emails and say "see? it's a massive fraud, he says so..." By this same logic, I can simply say christians are liars and then other people could prove that christians are liars by pointing to my opinion. See the parallel?
Taz, it's no parallel. I googled the Wall Street Journal and other respectable cites. None of what I've researched via Google would stoop to implicating Christians as liars as you have done here and other times in your responses to my input.
We know that CRU from which Phil Jones was forced to resign has admitted deleting the emails in question.
Here are a batch of the emails under investigation which have instigated the resignation of Phil Jones, head of EAU's (Eastern Anglia University) CRU, from which the UN gets climate data.
There is also numerous comments relative to the emails that have POV's from both camps. Read and judge for yourself what to conclude.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 12-05-2009 11:34 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-06-2009 1:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 36 of 191 (538359)
12-06-2009 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taz
12-05-2009 5:15 PM


Re: Global warming is real!
sleveque, I'm going to post the same request I did with Buzsaw. Post quotes directly from the emails themselves and we can discuss from there. You can quote faux news' opinions all you want in a gay-hating evangelical baptist church all you want. I don't think it's too much to ask to look directly at the sources of the so-called controversy.
Ok, WTF this is not only irrelevant (the gay-hating part) but totally absurd and insulting. And Seriously, I'm surprised admins didn't react. This is retarded lol
Anyhow, all I was saying was that it was absurd to come in this thread with the results from the GIEC, precisely when the very controversy is with the reliability of such data.
It was like:
- Look these emails supposedly show that the results were modified to show anthropogenic global wraming
- But no look, the data that they published show anthropogenic global warming ....
- Facepalm*
Anyhow, I'm skeptic about the GIEC resuls for one specific reason:
greenhouse gas who has the biggest effect right now is water vapor. But it is so complicated to simulate in models that we aren't able to do it yet, and so the biggest factor wasn't even taken into account by the GIEC. Yet they published that there was a 90% probability that anthropogenic factors were responsible.
This should ring an alarm bell for everyone, the biggest factor isn't taken into account, and yet they post a 90% figure ? I'm maybe the one not understanding, but something like this certainly ring a bell ...
PS Anyhow, back to the subjects. I've downloaded those emails to check through them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 12-05-2009 5:15 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Meldinoor, posted 12-06-2009 2:15 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 12-06-2009 3:16 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 42 by cavediver, posted 12-06-2009 4:55 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 127 by DBlevins, posted 12-11-2009 1:07 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 191 (538360)
12-06-2009 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Meldinoor
12-06-2009 1:28 AM


RE: Malicious Emails
Meldinoor writes:
Unless the journalists also happen to be scientists, why should we trust their knowledge on the subject over that of knowledgable experts? And why does the possible fraud of a small number of scientists necessarily mean that the entire scientific community is fraudulent?
Do you really expect the media tabloids to be objective on this issue?
Don't you find it a little odd that out of over a thousand e-mails and documents, only a few have been presented as evidence of fraud? And usually out of context.
Hi Meldinoor. Note my last message and decide for yourself how much of the suspect content of these emails you need to conclude whether Jones et al have been perpetrating fraud or promoting good science ethics regardless of whether the agregate collection of statments are out of context.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Meldinoor, posted 12-06-2009 1:28 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Meldinoor, posted 12-06-2009 2:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 38 of 191 (538362)
12-06-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
12-06-2009 1:32 AM


Re: More Emails
Buz, that's a link to a blog. Present the evidence and tell us what you think it means or withdraw the claim of fraud. Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 12-06-2009 1:32 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 39 of 191 (538364)
12-06-2009 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by slevesque
12-06-2009 1:48 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
Hi slevesque,
slevesque writes:
Ok, WTF this is not only irrelevant (the gay-hating part) but totally absurd and insulting. And Seriously, I'm surprised admins didn't react. This is retarded lol
Taz can be a jerk at times. Don't feed his trollish and spiteful behaviour by responding to it.
slevesque writes:
greenhouse gas who has the biggest effect right now is water vapor. But it is so complicated to simulate in models that we aren't able to do it yet, and so the biggest factor wasn't even taken into account by the GIEC. Yet they published that there was a 90% probability that anthropogenic factors were responsible.
Now granted, I'm not an expert in this field at all. But I think what you're saying is that we must take water vapour into account in order to conclude whether GW is anthropogenic or not? According to wikipedia:
quote:
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds
This means that other gases (like CO2 or methane) account for at least 15% of the greenhouse effect. That's enough to cause quite a bit of change should these gases start building up in the atmosphere. Furthermore, warm air can hold more water vapour. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see what might happen to water vapour concentration when the atmosphere heats up.
I agree with you in that modeling and simulating climate change is a very complex and difficult task (weather is complex, that's why meteorologists are unable to make accurate predictions more than a few days ahead). I don't think there's anyone who can predict with certainty how much climate change to expect, and how much of a role we'll play in causing it, but it is a fact that global temperatures are rising and that the levels of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are on the rise. This should be a cause for concern, and an indication that we are not blameless as temperatures start climbing.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 12-06-2009 1:48 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 40 of 191 (538365)
12-06-2009 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
12-06-2009 1:51 AM


RE: Malicious Emails
Even if Jones has acted fraudulently, or hidden certain data for who knows what purposes, that doesn't mean that every climatologist in the world whose research indicates anthropogenic GW is lying. All it shows that there are rotten apples in every basket.
I have read the e-mails, however, unlike you, I'm not going to judge these e-mails based on my personal bias and limited knowledge of the context. And I don't have to. The e-mails are being investigated by IPCC, and I suspect we will know soon how much, if any, fraud is behind them.
No point in reaching conclusions prematurely, eh? Let's wait until the facts roll in.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 12-06-2009 1:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 41 of 191 (538366)
12-06-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by slevesque
12-06-2009 1:48 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
slevesque writes:
Ok, WTF this is not only irrelevant (the gay-hating part) but totally absurd and insulting.
Insulting? I merely reflect on a pattern that I have noticed, that the same people who have been bible thumping are the same people who are most outspoken about the exaggerated claims of the supposed international fraud. If these emails indeed show conclusively of an international plot to politicize the global warming, then I would expect it to be very easy to post quotes, in context, directly from the emails themselves, not just links to blogs that prove their claims by linking to yet more blogs.
So far, the major news networks have only been able to outright present 2 words that supposedly make these emails controversial. The first was the use of the word "idiots" to describe global warming doubters. While unprofessional, these were personal emails not meant for press release. Heck, I call people idiots, dumbfucks, assholes, and a myriad other names all the time in my personal letters, emails, and conversations with colleagues.
The second word major news networks so far seem to like to quote is "trick" when used in regard to interpreting data. This is where I have to point out that journalists aren't scientists. Specialists of any area like to use certain words that mean completely different from what they're saying to describe something. In science, "trick" doesn't mean deception or manipulation of data as the press have been misleadingly presenting to the public. It simply means a different point of view of the data, or a different method to interpreting the data.
It's like the use of "hydrogen burning" when describing fusion in the sun. Non-physicists always think "hydrogen burning" means combustion involving hydrogen gas. This is where non-physicists tend to think they're smarter than the physicists themselves and try to correct the physicists when they describe what goes on in the sun as "hydrogen burning".
Again, if these emails are so damning evidence of massive international fraud, it should be as easy as turning your hand to post a couple quotes, in context, to show this abominable conspiracy.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 12-06-2009 1:48 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Meldinoor, posted 12-06-2009 5:38 AM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 42 of 191 (538368)
12-06-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by slevesque
12-06-2009 1:48 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
Anyhow, I'm skeptic about the GIEC resuls for one specific reason:
greenhouse gas who has the biggest effect right now is water vapor. But it is so complicated to simulate in models that we aren't able to do it yet, and so the biggest factor wasn't even taken into account by the GIEC. Yet they published that there was a 90% probability that anthropogenic factors were responsible.
This should ring an alarm bell for everyone
The only alarm bell ringing for me is that I have obviously been far too generous in my estimations of your good self...
Do you really think that an entire world body of scientists is going to publish results that conveniently miss out error bars that reduce the output to random gibberish, AND ASSUME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GET AWAY WITH IT??????
As I have said before, you really do have to start *THINKING*..
Perhaps you can point out a peer-reviewed published paper that discusses the correct error range once the massive uncertainty in water-vapour is factored in?
While you are looking, I will point you to this paper from the IPCC site - Climate Models and Their Evaluation. Perhaps, once you have read it, you can let me know how many times the phrase 'water vapour' (notice the English spelling) is not mentioned, and how blatently water vapour is ignored in the models as both a forcing agent, a feedback agent, and its secondary and tertiary effects. While you're reading it, you could also note the complete lack of comment regarding clouds and albedo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 12-06-2009 1:48 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 43 of 191 (538369)
12-06-2009 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Taz
12-06-2009 3:16 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
Taz writes:
I merely reflect on a pattern that I have noticed, that the same people who have been bible thumping are the same people who are most outspoken about the exaggerated claims of the supposed international fraud
I have also noticed how Christians in general, and especially Creationists tend to be the most skeptical (read pseudo-skeptical) of Global Warming. Anyone know why this is?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Taz, posted 12-06-2009 3:16 AM Taz has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Granny Magda, posted 12-06-2009 6:37 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 12-06-2009 12:18 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 44 of 191 (538374)
12-06-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Meldinoor
12-06-2009 5:38 AM


Re: Global warming is real!
Hi Meldinoor,
I have also noticed how Christians in general, and especially Creationists tend to be the most skeptical (read pseudo-skeptical) of Global Warming. Anyone know why this is?
Crank Magnetism.
This is one of my main beefs with religion in general. It discourages critical thinking in favour of faith, which I regard as not really being any kind of thought at all.
Mutate and Survive
AbE; Another fun link from Orac; "Truly, when it comes to crank magnetism, {Melanie} Phillips represents the trifecta of woo!"
Page not found | ScienceBlogs
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Meldinoor, posted 12-06-2009 5:38 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 45 of 191 (538387)
12-06-2009 9:07 AM


Here is the entire email database from East Anglia that was leaked: East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable. Everyone do there own research. Hope this helps.
I do not have enough information on this event to comment on it yet. I will work my way through the emails and do some background research to try to determine what is going on here.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024