posted
actually? if you think hard? you'll remember that i am somewhat skeptical of temp records collected based on tree rings friend.
i am not skeptical about the fact that we are burning the accumulation of millions of years of carbon in a few decades.
i've read everything you've pushed out there and even a little more.
most of the "journalists" covering this story use words like "suggest" and other qualifiers that genrally mean they already had their minds made up and are looking for evidence to support their beleifs which you are doing too... the qualifiers also mean that no proof is there. cuz it ain't.
on the other hand? i know how the scientific community operates, and fraudsters in science usually go into the pink sheets and not academia.
most academic scientific fraud is not about publishing bad data, it's about hiding good data.
for instance, there was a researcher exposing cultured nerve tissue and cells to cell phone radiation way back in the 90's. i met him. his research never got published. in twenty-thirty years? there will most likely be real epidemic of gliomas and other brain tumors/cancer because his study wasburied, and people don't want to beleive their cell phones are dangerous...(they are just too cool to be dangerous)...
it's crazy how some politicians are reacting to global warming, i agree with that...
you will never convince me that we do not have to address this problem in a rational way. esp. since there's so much easy money (as opposed to earned money) at stake.
i have no intention of quitting blowing glass. i expect our leaders in all areas to find a solution that we can all ive and thrive with for centuries into the future....
oil is a finite product. coal? we know how dirty it is just look at China.. Nat Gas? we'll never run out of that
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, that's just not true. We are not adding a million year's worth of carbon dioxide in a few decades. Our addition to the normally produced CO2 is miniscule. You are basing your knowledge on the writings and findings of obviously dishonest people. No scientist... let me rephrase that.. No honest scientist in search of real answers would EVER... EVER delete, discard, lose, his base data.. That base data is everything to an honest scientist.
.8 degrees Celsius in 157 years? What's the margin of error?.. ten degrees? Good god we are planning to change the very nature of world governance.. based on this ****? And you're buying into it?
We do agree completely on limiting pollution. We do agree that we as a nation need to move away from fossil fuels. We will not agree about this global warming...
IP: Logged |
posted
We are not adding a million year's worth of carbon dioxide in a few decades. Our addition to the normally produced CO2 is miniscule.
that's crazy DQR, we have not only severely damaged the carbon sequestration systems, but we burn fuels that took millions of years to be sequestered. You know how oil is made, and yo know it takes millions of years to do it....
8 degrees Celsius in 157 years? What's the margin of error?.. ten degrees? Good god we are planning to change the very nature of world governance.. based on this ****? And you're buying into it?
uh, asked an answered several times.
i actually read the paper these guys write , not the rehashed, reinterpreted, sensationlaised news articles, i highly recomend that if you want to call them liars and frauds, that you go to the libaerry and read the Journals instead of the news articles, i think you will find that in those Journals? plenty of heated debate and arguing is accompanying the articles in the letters sections. Said debate is done by people that have the same education levels in the same fields.
practicing science is an art just like the law and medicine... Einstein said it pretty well:
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
however, to call them frauds? that's not for you or me to judge, it is for their peers to decide.
Einstein was blackballed by his professor. That's why he was working as a Govt employee in the patent office instead of as professor when he wrote his first important paper. Einstein’s early papers all come from attempts to demonstrate that atoms exist and have a finite nonzero size. At the time of his first paper in 1902, it was not yet completely accepted by physicists that atoms were real, even though chemists had good evidence ever since Antoine Lavoisier’s work a century earlier. The reason physicists were skeptical was because no 19th century theory could fully explain the properties of matter from the properties of atoms.
you won't find me defending the politicians mess that's being made of this.
Scientists have to raise funds to pay for their research. Alot of horsehockey gets slung because of that, but thiey face losing all funding for life if they are caught faking their work as you and a whole lot of people are accusing Jones of doing. There is not a global conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. There is huge global argument, and there is alot of money at stake. What i wantr to see come out of the global warming fears is some funding for new science, not cap and trade or any other kind of socialism.
IMO? the people that call the scientists socialist propagandists just haven't taken the time to understand what the scientists are really saying and doing, they are simply listening to political spindoctors.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
criminal is a criminal an act of crime for what ever the reason is an act of crime the bank robber that commits the crime for a good cause a robin hood I have seen them them all they are sick and criminals and are not to be trusted like you punk. and I am talking to you rent
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
as to the destruction of data. i bet yo that it will come out that somebody has the data. it's just not on the servers ready to be dumped. the people that worked with it back in the 80's did not beleive they were working on "saving dafriggingplanet" they were simply collecting data for "esoteric" papers which scientists have to pump out every year to show they haven't been spending all their time chasing co-eds (just most of it).
the data would still be available from the same sources it was collected from then unless it was put in garbage can- i got to work on my first computer in 81 in th enavy and we used DOS..we had a green screen... before that? did write some fortran in Engineering 101 on punch cards, i bought my own first Apple 2e puter in 82 *still have it in storage) and it even has a joy stick.. i think it has a couple of 64K ram chips and i can't remeber how much disk space, but i know that my first Gigabyte hard drive was a Sony Vaio i bought in 97 i upgraded it myself to 4 gigs ... id' already had 2 PC's beside the apple before that.. a 386 and then a 486 Pentium wooohooo!
storage of data was not nearly as simple s it is today...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: criminal is a criminal an act of crime for what ever the reason is an act of crime the bank robber that commits the crime for a good cause a robin hood I have seen them them all they are sick and criminals and are not to be trusted like you punk. and I am talking to you rent
Congrats on nearly mastering that keyboard... Truly amazing what they can teach autistic chimps these days... I'm assuming its the shock collar that produces the bitter attitude.. but.. still... congrats.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: as to the destruction of data. i bet yo that it will come out that somebody has the data. it's just not on the servers ready to be dumped. the people that worked with it back in the 80's did not beleive they were working on "saving dafriggingplanet" they were simply collecting data for "esoteric" papers which scientists have to pump out every year to show they haven't been spending all their time chasing co-eds (just most of it).
the data would still be available from the same sources it was collected from then unless it was put in garbage can- i got to work on my first computer in 81 in th enavy and we used DOS..we had a green screen... before that? did write some fortran in Engineering 101 on punch cards, i bought my own first Apple 2e puter in 82 *still have it in storage) and it even has a joy stick.. i think it has a couple of 64K ram chips and i can't remeber how much disk space, but i know that my first Gigabyte hard drive was a Sony Vaio i bought in 97 i upgraded it myself to 4 gigs ... id' already had 2 PC's beside the apple before that.. a 386 and then a 486 Pentium wooohooo!
storage of data was not nearly as simple s it is today...
I think we differ on our opinion of the ethics of these folks. I would be willing to wager that if the data is still around on some server or closet and it is found by them.. we will never know about it. Scientists do not like being proven wrong... To reveal the base data would open all of their work up to scrutiny...
Never owned an apple.. Did have a commodore 64 and then an omega 128. That was cutting edge back in the day.
IP: Logged |
i think if you read their papers? you'll see what i'm getting at about the "unequivocally" vs "likely" statements. Jones did not say "unequivocally", the people that put the most spin on things are not the scientists..
when i read the news articles, and compare them to tthe actual papers? i often wonder if the "news folks" even read the same papers...
i am pretty sure i know why you are upset, but it isn't the scientists that have been screwing with all the data, it's news people and then of cours th politicians...
the only reason i have seen ANY of Al Gores movie is that i was obliged to particpate in the "viewing" at a family event... i disappeared as soon as i could without being noticed.
measured dissolved CO2 is going up in the oceans too..
BUT!
how long ago did they begin taking the measuremnts?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well I think your last question really hits at the real issue. This is a very new science. Being that it is a very new science is alarm enough to carefully ignore all of the findings. There is a constant in all of science and that is scientists are always wrong for the fist fifty years. At some point there will be an epiphany by some poor guy who will never get the credit.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glass: when i read the news articles, and compare them to tthe actual papers? i often wonder if the "news folks" even read the same papers...
true, very few reporters are skilled at handling either scientific or legal topics.
Traditionally, journalism as we used to know it was good at handling "events": fires, robberies, conventions, etc. Sometimes even war: Witness Herr's Dispatches.
RD: This is a very new science.
The point remains that just about anybody can tell we are experiencing what Amory Lovins calls "global weirding." Who can say what is exactly right? Reminds me of penny-stock scams when "true longs" demand proof rather than simply following common sense.
In this case, the climate, the globe: yeah, it's a good idea to reduce emissions, pollution. If we **** up the planet by being efficient, then it was meant to be...
But to kill it by being wasteful, wantful, wasting, getting fat and stoopid...that's not OK.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
Tex, our memory isn't long enough to compare weather events such that we would know weird from normal. Your point about not living like slobs is accurate. It's not worthy of government intervention like we are about to see, but it has merit.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Tex, our memory isn't long enough to compare weather events such that we would know weird from normal. Your point about not living like slobs is accurate. It's not worthy of government intervention like we are about to see, but it has merit.
funny thing about Govt intervention. i'm getting tired of hearing people say the govt cannot do anything right.
the private sector is not better than the govt at getting things right.
i don't know what the current data is but the last i heard only 1 in 4 startup businesses succceed.
we all know how many pink sheet co's are legit.
and we all know how many major private/public co's have failed in the last 20 yrs. Kmart Enron Sears, MCI, all the Broker/Banks... sheesh the list goes on and on.
if anything? the Govt outsurvives it all, it gives a small peice of continuity in a very evolutionary world. It was designed to undergo it's own revolutionary changes every 4 or 8 years regardless.
does that meant he Govt is great? heck no. it's a human product, it's a mess, but it's what we have to have to survive as a country.
i am a firm beleiver in natural selection and evolution. so, it's kinda funny to me that the same people calling themselves Creationists, are the proponents of Evolutionary Prinicples in economics.
seriously DQR, historically, most of the hatred for scientists comes right from that group. Most of the scientists are not only bad at politics? they are bad a social behaviour in every aspect. We made fun of them in high school remeber?
I'm not against natural selection in business. But i don't think living in a country that has a violent revolution every 100 yrs would a good place to live.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Dot Earth - New York Times blog December 1, 2009, 3:05 pm Head of Climate Unit Steps Down Pending Inquiry By ANDREW C. REVKIN
As the University of East Anglia investigates the disclosure of thousands of e-mail messages and documents from its Climatic Research Unit, as well as the implications of the contents for its climate research, the head of the unit is stepping aside. Here is the news release:
Prof. Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of e-mails from the unit.
Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the university for agreeing to this. The review process will have my full support.”
Vice Chancellor Prof. Edward Acton said: “I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations. We will announce details of the independent review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Prof. Peter Liss, F.R.S., C.B.E., will become acting director.”
For more than a week, the episode has fueled a fierce debate on the blogosphere and in newspaper columns and once again placed global warming science under intense scrutiny. Presuming that the inquiry is as independent, probing and transparent as advertised, some clarity may emerge on many fronts.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
