Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An inconvenient truth.... or lie?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 76 of 191 (538512)
12-07-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by petrophysics1
12-07-2009 3:06 PM


BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 2
You know, I think climatologists might know almost as much about paleoclimatology as you do, what with being climatologists. They are, surely, well aware that it has been hotter in former geological periods than it is now. Perhaps, dare I suggest it, they understand this fact and its causes even better than you do.
As arguments from authority go, then, your reference to your credentials is somewhat lacking: firstly, because there are higher authorities, who are the very people whose opinion you wish to dispute; and secondly, because you don't need to be a petroleum exploration geologist to know what you do about paleoclimates. I knew that.
As for your reasoning ...
"As a demographer, I can assert that for most of human history the average life expectancy was no more than thirty --- if that. And yet the prosecution wishes you to believe that the death of John Smith was "unnatural", even though he lived to the ripe old age of forty-five. Given the statistics I have cited, we can therefore disregard the fact that he was living in the twenty-first century, the fact that witnesses saw Fred Bloggs empty a revolver into his chest, and the so-called "medical evidence" suggesting that this was the cause of death. The Anthropogenic Death Hypothesis is a crock!"
P.S: do mathematicians count as scientists for the purposes of keeping score?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by petrophysics1, posted 12-07-2009 3:06 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 10:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 77 of 191 (538513)
12-07-2009 4:26 PM


You can download the emails here
I've taken the liberty to upload it in my account. Click here to download a rar file of all the emails. After you decompress, all files are in txt format. No more excuses for linking to blogs that link to other blogs that link to yet other blogs for proof of this supposed international fraud.

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


Message 78 of 191 (538524)
12-07-2009 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by petrophysics1
12-07-2009 3:06 PM


Re: BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 0
There's a big difference between demographic conditions back in the Middle Ages (or pretty much any time period before the Industrial Age) and today.
Say you have a 1 to 3 meter rise in sea level during the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about 800 CE to 1300 CE. At that time the world population was all of 300 to 400 million people. The effects would be noticable, but not devestating, as there were just not that many people or large cities or infrastructure. The world would adapt, and in fact did adapt.
Now project the effects of even just a half-meter rise in sea level to today. Approximately 10,000 square miles of land end up underwater in the United States alone. The costs of protecting just the major coastal cities would be in the billions. And let's not forget the loss of more aquifers to the accompanying rise in salinity even miles inland.
So arguing that the world has had warm periods before and so we shouldn't worrying about it today are a bit disingenuous. Europe also used to be buried under miles of glaciers, back 20,000 years ago. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a problem today.
Anyway, this is somewhat off the topic of the claims that the "secret emails" reveal a vast cover-up and that GCC is just a hoax. The data is out there. (It took me very little effort just to pull up the EPA report I used as a reference on the consequences of rising sea levels.) There's tons of it. And it pretty much points in the same direction. I think it's the denialists who are the hysterical ones.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : spelling and clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by petrophysics1, posted 12-07-2009 3:06 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 191 (538549)
12-07-2009 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rahvin
12-07-2009 3:31 PM


Re: BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 0
Rahvin writes:
There has been much referral to blogs, and commentary, and videos, but so far no actual quotes from the emails, no analysis from a qualified independent climatologist on the actual meaning of the emails (as opposed to what silly journalists and talk-show hosts think they mean), and no addressing the fact that climate research has been carried out at countless Universities around the globe as opposed to these results coming from only one corrupt group of frauds.
Hi Rahvin.
1. First off I'll answer a previous question of yours as to the UN's agenda etc.
The Biblical prophets have predicted it for centuries that in the end times previous to the millenial Kingdom of Jehovah on Earth that there will be a final global government/empire which will control every tribe, nation, and tongue on earth.
Most of the globalist elites for the last century have been globalist New World Order promoters. The first attempt to establish this order was in 1919 and 1920 at the Treaty of Versailles when the League of Nations was formed. There were 58 nation members at it's height in the mid 1930s just before it waned and became irrevalent, unable to deal with the Axis when Germany opted out over disputes about the Jews etc.
It was replaced by the UN after WWII and has become more of a factor in establishing world order. The agenda has been to diminish national soveignty so as to have a global consensus on the issues and to distribute the wealth so as to bolster up the third world non-productive cultures primarily at the expense of the Western producing prosperous nations and in particular the US. We pay nearly a quarter of the total budget and Japan, another industrious freedom minded democracy pays nearly 20 percentage.
Some of it's goals included civil rights of people of color, women rights, disarmament, diplomacy, etc.
So to answer your question, the UN and globalists like most of our executive branch are feverishly working to establish the NWO. If they can establish that carbon dioxide is harmful and causing global warming etc they can redistribute the wealth from the freedom minded Western type nations to totalitarian nations by cap and trade, i.e. puting a price/tax on carbon. Islamic and communist nations who seem to to be ever emerging as the ones who dictate the agend of the world body would be among the beneficiaries of cap and trade.
2. Blessed be the blogs. Like every source of information, there's the good objective honest researchers and there's the disseminenators of deception. Were it not for them, much that goes on in the shadows would never be aired. Objective researchers willing to do the homework can sort out which are reliable. That's one of the reasons cites like EvC are so important. Debating the issues serves to enlighten.

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 73 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2009 3:31 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2009 7:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 80 of 191 (538551)
12-07-2009 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
12-07-2009 7:37 PM


Re: BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 0
Well. This is about what I expected, Buzz.
Hi Rahvin.
1. First off I'll answer a previous question of yours as to the UN's agenda etc.
The Biblical prophets have predicted it for centuries that in the end times previous to the millenial Kingdom of Jehovah on Earth that there will be a final global government/empire which will control every tribe, nation, and tongue on earth.
Most of the globalist elites for the last century have been globalist New World Order promoters. The first attempt to establish this order was in 1919 and 1920 at the Treaty of Versailles when the League of Nations was formed. There were 58 nation members at it's height in the mid 1930s just before it waned and became irrevalent, unable to deal with the Axis when Germany opted out over disputes about the Jews etc.
It was replaced by the UN after WWII and has become more of a factor in establishing world order. The agenda has been to diminish national soveignty so as to have a global consensus on the issues and to distribute the wealth so as to bolster up the third world non-productive cultures primarily at the expense of the Western producing prosperous nations and in particular the US. We pay nearly a quarter of the total budget and Japan, another industrious freedom minded democracy pays nearly 20 percentage.
Some of it's goals included civil rights of people of color, women rights, disarmament, diplomacy, etc.
So to answer your question, the UN and globalists like most of our executive branch are feverishly working to establish the NWO. If they can establish that carbon dioxide is harmful and causing global warming etc they can redistribute the wealth from the freedom minded Western type nations to totalitarian nations by cap and trade, i.e. puting a price/tax on carbon. Islamic and communist nations who seem to to be ever emerging as the ones who dictate the agend of the world body would be among the beneficiaries of cap and trade.
Soyes, you do in fact believe that the UN is using climatology and teh threat of global warming in a vast conspiracy to engineer a massive payout to the 3rd world.
Buz, do you have any idea how absurd that it? The UN has absolutely no control over any nation, period. It cannot interfere with another nation's sovereignty - resolutions carry only the force of the individual nations' willingness to support them. A trade embargo resolution has no force behind it if a member nation decides to disregard.
Further, you're seriously suggesting that industrialized nations, which incidentally comprise most of the UN Security Council's permanent members and thus each have a veto power, will be "forced" by the UN (which, again, cannot force anything) to pay trillions of dollars in reparations to developing nations.
For what benefit, Buz? Giving warlords cash so they can continue to fuck things up worse? Funding already-failed states? "Forced globalization?" You're making absurd accusations and backing it up with interpretations of ancient prophesy, completely disregarding any inconvenient facts that don't agree with your bizarre fantasy.
It's a conspiracy theory, Buz, and a poor one at that. Do you honestly think that the US, for instance, would really go through with paying "reparations" to poor countries based on climate changes that affect developed countries as well, and (assuming human-affected warming) for which the developing world now shares a hand in anyway?
"OH NOES! ONE WORLD GOV"MENT! THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST! REPENT FOT EH END IS COMING!"
How many people have said the same things, Buz, for how many centuries? How many times has the world ended?
2. Blessed be the blogs. Like every source of information, there's the good objective honest researchers and there's the disseminenators of deception. Were it not for them, much that goes on in the shadows would never be aired. Objective researchers willing to do the homework can sort out which are reliable. That's one of the reasons cites like EvC are so important. Debating the issues serves to enlighten.
I do not in any way dispute that blogs can be an effective tool for communication and spreading ideas. However, when evidence is demanded, you cannot respond with Joe Blow's opinion of the evidence. That would be like me relying exclusively on Richard Dawkins' opinion of the Bible rather than reading it myself. You'd hardly let me get away with quoting Dawkins if you asked me for chapter and verse. For the same reason, a blog, while useful in presenting an argument, is not evidence of anything other than that someone has an opinion. And from what I understand, those are apparently just as common as assholes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 7:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taz, posted 12-07-2009 10:14 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 81 of 191 (538559)
12-07-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Rahvin
12-07-2009 7:51 PM


Re: BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 0
To further derail this thread, I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Javier Solana.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Rahvin, posted 12-07-2009 7:51 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 82 of 191 (538564)
12-07-2009 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
12-07-2009 4:23 PM


Re: BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 2
P.S: do mathematicians count as scientists for the purposes of keeping score?
If all mathematicians do is keep score they are fine. ;-)
But I believe that they are not scientists unless they use their mathematical tools to answer scientific questions (i.e., questions outside of mathematics). Mathematics itself is not science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2009 4:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2009 12:41 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 191 (538572)
12-07-2009 11:26 PM


Hypothetical Effect Of Warming
Logically it would seem that significant global warming could have several effects:
1. More evaporation to offset the possibility of significant rising in the depth of the ocean.
2. A net increase of warming cycles of the atmosphere which would cause clouds to rise and become less dense.
3. Lessening of rainfall due to clouds becoming less dense and rising.
4. High cirrus increasing cloudiness effect, gradually and increasingly blanketing the planet.
5. The net effect would be to lower the ocean levels and eventually blanket the planet.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2009 12:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 84 of 191 (538574)
12-08-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coyote
12-07-2009 10:24 PM


Re: BUZSAW 2, OPPOSITION 2
But I believe that they are not scientists unless they use their mathematical tools to answer scientific questions (i.e., questions outside of mathematics).
Done that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 12-07-2009 10:24 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 191 (538575)
12-08-2009 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
12-07-2009 11:26 PM


Re: Hypothetical Effect Of Warming
Logically ...
That is a strange use of the word "logically".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2009 11:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2009 10:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 86 of 191 (538587)
12-08-2009 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
12-04-2009 5:33 PM


Enough of opinions based on other peoples opinions...
Having looked through some of the email, I was struck by the following dialog, which transpired among a few people apparently trying to coordinate figures for some publication or other. I'll present it in chronological order, which is the reverse of how it was presented in a single message found here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=710&filename= 1153254016.txt
Tim Osborn writes:
I've drafted two versions of the new fig 6.14, comprising a new panel showing the forcing used in the EMIC runs, plus the old fig 6.13e panel showing the EMIC simulated NH temperatures. Keith has seen them already. First you should know what I did, so that you (especially Fortunat) can check that what I did was appropriate:
(1) For the volcanic forcing, I simply took the volcanic RF forcing from Fortunat's file and applied the 30-year smoothing before plotting it.
...
Fortunat Joos writes:
1) Volcanic panel: I strongly believe that we should show what was used by the model and not some 40 year smoothed curves for volcanic forcing or any other forcing. So please use the original data file. Scientific honesty demands to show what was used and not something post-processed.
...
Tim Osborn writes:
... I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat...
One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat's implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then presumably the same holds for 6.13 ... Most climate models, even GCMs, respond in a quasi-linear way, such that the smoothed response to unsmooth forcing is very similar to the response to smooth forcing. So if we are interested in the temperature response on time scales of 30 years and longer, it seems entirely appropriate ... to show the forcings on this time scale too, because the forcing variations on those time scales are the ones that are driving the temperature response ... The choice of smoothing / no smoothing is not, therefore, anything to do with honesty/dishonesty, but is purely a presentational choice that can made accordingly to what the purpose of the figure is. Here our purpose seems to be long-term climate changes, rather than response to individual volcanoes or to the 11-yr solar cycle.
So the position is:
(1) smoothing or no smoothing: there are arguments for both choices, though clearly I prefer smoothing and Fortunat prefers no smoothing. I could make a figure which kept the smooth lines but put the raw annual histogram volcanic spikes underneath in pale grey, as Peck requested anyway ...
Fortunat Joos writes:
Sorry, that was a very careless and a totally inappropriate choice of words. I seriously apologize. Of course smoothing is not dishonest (I do it also all the time). To the contrary, I very much apreciate all your hard work to do these figures. I know that it is very time consuming from own experience ... (that is perhaps why I did not reflect on my wording when writing the e-mail). What I wanted to say is that if one has the opportunity to show directly what forcing was used by the model than I very much prefer to do so. I hope there remains no misunderstanding. I realize now that I should have used more modest wording at various places.
Well, how's that for conspiratorial schemers carrying out their behind-the-scenes chicanery? They even use the actual word "dishonest" -- a veritable mother-lode for quote miners!
I've been seeing similar dialogs elsewhere in this stolen archive -- for instance the infamous Phil Jones himself mentioning that he omitted 38 weather-station sites from actual 1986 data because the sites were in urban areas (in "Urban Heat Islands) and thus were abnormally warm relative to the 2666 sites that were retained; he even quotes one David Parker, writing to one Geoff Jenkins:
David Parker writes:
It is correct that Phil Jones removes stations that appear to have urban warming, unlike Hansen et al. who correct them. I don't know the percentage of stations that Phil removes; details were probably originally given in the Jones et al 1985 and 1986 USDoE reports (see references given in Jones and Moberg, 2003...
Can you imagine? A global-warming believer omitting data samples because they were unreasonably warm! What nerve! What utter hubris!! If political discourse were carried out this way, what sort of world would this be??
Now that these facts are out, I have no doubt Buzzsaw will cite the biblical prophesy that predicted this very behavior as part of the inexorable emergence of the Satan's New World Order, and this new evidence may even lead him to finally work out the particular date and time of the coming rapture. {AbE: How fortunate for our Biblical Prophecy folks that these emails have finally been made public, for until now there was no way for them to know what had to be predicted.} (Wow-- data from 2666 weather stations used in a 1986 paper! That tells you something deeply prophetic right there, for sure!)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : Improved the explication about prophecy in last paragraph.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-04-2009 5:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 87 of 191 (538598)
12-08-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by jacortina
12-07-2009 11:53 AM


jacortina
You have GOT to be kidding me (I really and truly hope so).
Thanks for the links. I checked some of them out and they are actually a lot better than the information provided by the Met Office here in UK the last time I checked.
You make a fair point, and I accept it is easier to get hold of certain data than I implied.
However, my point was really meant to be about the way the data is presented to the general public by the media and, more importantly, by the government - at least here in UK. I think that when the governments are trying to change the way we lead our lives (well, at least putting on a pretence that they're doing that) and taxing us left, right and centre in the name of the environment, they owe it to us to present the facts properly. A major, major issue like this should at least warrant an official booklet explaining what data the government is working by to draw its conclusions and make its decisions. It shouldn't be necessary to go trawling through dozens of independent websites to try and piece together the facts.
I don't think it should be difficult to put together a simple document that any intelligent person could understand that would explain how the data is gathered, how reliable it is, and what the indications are. And which also sought to explain such anomalies as why temperatures were so much higher in the 90s than during the past decade, because that doesn't make any intuitive sense as industrialisation and CO2 output must have increased during the past 10 years. There may be a perfectly good explanation for this. I'd like to hear it. When you don't get any explanation for this, or when you're regarded as a heretic just for questioning certain things, that naturally leads you to be sceptical.
I reiterate that I don't want to be sceptical; I'm a thinking open-minded person who likes to see facts presented properly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jacortina, posted 12-07-2009 11:53 AM jacortina has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ZenMonkey, posted 12-08-2009 11:36 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 88 of 191 (538601)
12-08-2009 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
12-07-2009 12:09 PM


"Secret email"? I know of no organization anywhere in the world that publishes its internal emails. It follows, then, that every organization is being "secretive". Now why should that be --- "unless there is an agenda to control or deceive the public"?
You're probably right than no organisation publishes its internal emails. But why was there such a fuss about these emails being leaked? Why give a toss if there's nothing to hide?
I reiterate that I've no problem accepting the principle of greenhouse gases causing global warming.
It's this whole shifty attitude that I don't like. On one hand we get dogma telling us "Global Warming! Climate Change! Temperatures rising by x degrees! Sea levels rising by x metres!" and then when you peer behind the scenes or ask questions and they don't like it.
Why not?! Who are these people serving if not the public?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-07-2009 12:09 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by hooah212002, posted 12-08-2009 6:34 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 92 by Vacate, posted 12-08-2009 7:30 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 89 of 191 (538602)
12-08-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-08-2009 6:31 AM


See my last post, Message 68. These emails have been twisted and spun because of some the verbage used.
(BTW, the CRU is the group in question with the leaked emails. So their take on the subject is of particular interest)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-08-2009 6:31 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 90 of 191 (538603)
12-08-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Taz
12-07-2009 3:55 PM


Is this a joke or are you seriously this clueless? There is no organization in this world that publishes its emails. In fact, the organization known as my family doesn't publish our emails either. Do you publish your emails?
No, but I don't use taxpayers money to do research for the government which in turn is supposed to be working solely for the benefit of the public.
It's not the fact that they didn't publish these emails in the first place. It's the fact that they made such a fuss about the emails being published. Why, why, why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 12-07-2009 3:55 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by hooah212002, posted 12-08-2009 6:42 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 100 by Taz, posted 12-08-2009 4:52 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024