U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2009, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,385 posts, read 37,689,162 times
Reputation: 22518

Advertisements

Just as an aside: "For the first time in human history . . ." You do realize what an eyeblink (at most) that is in the overall scheme of things and in the history of the planet, don't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2009, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,586,675 times
Reputation: 2453
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Just as an aside: "For the first time in human history . . ." You do realize what an eyeblink (at most) that is in the overall scheme of things and in the history of the planet, don't you?
Life will certainly go on - the only question is, do we care about the generations that will follow us? We, as a species, need the planet a lot more than it needs us...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2009, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,385 posts, read 37,689,162 times
Reputation: 22518
This is true. However, I've observed (and my point was) that we, as a species, tend to give ourselves a heck of a lot more credit, or blame, for how things go than we likely really deserve, if you look at the big picture. Thus, the fact that something hasn't been like this in "human history" doesn't mean that it's not a natural phenomenon or, for that matter, that we're simply a tool of nature doing what it needs to do to keep things going.

WE may think we're the hottest, most important thing since sliced bread. I seriously doubt nature thinks so.

As for the generations that come after us, yes, I care a lot about them, and I think that we have an obligation to tread as lightly as reasonable on the planet for that reason as well as others. I also think that, for those generations, it is critical that we recognize when science is being manipulated and come down on those who would do that hard, because I think it will be of vital importance to the well-being of those future generations and the species that science not be prostituted to politics or fashion or ego or mammon, which is what we see doing when purported "scientists" start attempting to hide or manipulate or influence results that do not agree with their preferred results. That's not science, never has been, never will be.

We can indulge ourselves in that behavior. Scientists cannot and expect to keep the name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,586,675 times
Reputation: 2453
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
This is true. However, I've observed (and my point was) that we, as a species, tend to give ourselves a heck of a lot more credit, or blame, for how things go than we likely really deserve, if you look at the big picture.
Unless you want to breathe smog and live in a world full of acid rain, diseases that thrive in warmer temperatures and landfills, I am talking about the big picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
I also think that, for those generations, it is critical that we recognize when science is being manipulated and come down on those who would do that hard, because I think it will be of vital importance to the well-being of those future generations and the species that science not be prostituted to politics or fashion or ego or mammon, which is what we see doing when purported "scientists" start attempting to hide or manipulate or influence results that do not agree with their preferred results. That's not science, never has been, never will be.
Yet you understand this is a nonsequitor. None of the "climate gate" hoopla is about science, as in, hard data, being manipulated. Trying to make a graph prove your point is one thing, and in this case definitely borderline unethical, but to state that this somehow makes irrelevant the hundreds and thousands of other independently-conducted research data makes little sense.

And as long as we're talking about ethics, I find it rather amusing nobody here seems at all upset that this information - private communication - was stolen in the first place! And conveniently right before Copenhagen, with the perp knowing that it would take the scientific community a while to try and explain all of the issues, which are complicated enough to begin with.

Try this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ...ayer_embedded#

As for whether we can make a serious difference on the planet, of course we can, as far as concerns our own health as a species.

It doesn't take a lot of mercury or other industrial pollutants or even our own untreated sewage to ruin a really large body of drinking water, for example.

When you look at the conditions that exist on the planets we're familiar with, it should make us all the more grateful for what we have here on Earth - other planets are totally inhospitable.

The fossil fuel industries have been playing politics quite successfully for over 50 years (think of the utter insanity of Reagan rolling back CAFE standards, which did little except make us more dependent on oil from the petro-dictatorships in the Middle East). I think it's extremely naive to think they just stopped.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,385 posts, read 37,689,162 times
Reputation: 22518
Never said they stopped. But that doesn't make it okay for anyone calling themselves a scientist on EITHER side of the aisle to manipulate data, ANY data, to get a desired result, to try to give a false impression of findings if they don't agree with your preferred outcome (or paycheck). If it's wrong for the fossil fuel industry to do it, it's just as wrong for scientists striving to prove human impact on global warming to do it (and "striving to prove" should exist NOWHERE in science, by the way, as an attitude).

Yes, the emails were stolen. That's wrong. However, it is irrelevant to whether or not the attitudes displayed in those emails (and there has been NO claim that the emails were fabricated, you'll note, rather there have been attempts to explain them away) are appropriate for anyone calling themselves a scientist.

I'm hearing a lot of, "But, Mom, EVERYBODY's doing it!" in your post. That doesn't work with most parents, and it definitely doesn't work in an adult discussion of serious issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,586,675 times
Reputation: 2453
No, you're obfuscating the point because you clearly have not read in detail what the "scandal" is about. Private emails are just that, and people talk differently in them than they would otherwise - and cherrypicking a few emails out of thousands is manipulative in and of itself.

As one statistician put it - let's say you flip a coin 1,000 times. odds are you're going to get 5 heads in a row at some point. now, an unethical manipulative type could pull that string of 5 results and say "See? The coin was fixed!"

So what the scientists are being accused of is in fact exactly what the accusers are doing.

Again, I do not condone it - but 2 scientists jabbering about whether or not to include one particular set of data is not manipulating the data itself, and does not in any way change the bottom line, which is the earth is warming at a pace never before seen in human history. As to their "attitudes," again, irrelevant to the big picture. See the latest press release below:


Statement from the UK science community - Times Online

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,385 posts, read 37,689,162 times
Reputation: 22518
Okay, let's try it this way, since what I'm saying clearly isn't getting across.

If the tables were turned, and the emails were not from the group of scientists who support what you prefer to believe, and were from those who disagree with them, would you be reacting in the same way and making the same excuses for them? I, for one, would, because my issue is not with the topic of global warming but with what is science and what is becoming of it as it becomes politicized. (I frankly think that politics and the people for whom it is the be all end all of life are a MUCH greater threat than climate change is, at the moment, by the way. Because politics blinds people likek that, so that they can't find their way to positive solutions if it involves listening to someone who doesn't share their politics. And we, as a species, can't afford that self-indulgence on either side of the debate, especially if your theory about the causes of global warming is accurate.) If you can't, in the honesty of your own heart, say that you would be just as much in defense of the scientists who don't support your point of view if they were in the same situation, you need to think about why. For the sake of the species.

As for "jabbering about whether or not to include one set of data", that's not solely what the emails said and not what we're arguing about. It's the WHY and the HOW that they were coming to that decision that's critical, and the emails do, indeed, speak to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,238,669 times
Reputation: 948
I'll still waiting for the first scientific paper to be withdrawn due to faulty data from CRU.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 04:03 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,394,061 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
start here:

The EPA Climate Change Kids Site

then go here:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...atement-on.pdf

but seriously, you just don't get it. East Anglia is not the center and end-all be-all of what's happening to the planet. And only someone who hates their grandchildren would be against the world addressing pollution and renewable energy goals.

The science that backs up "climate change" encompasses numerous fields, thousands of researchers, and datasets calibrated from ice core samples to stomata counts on fossilized plants/their modern relatives.

You can beat this straw man to death and beyond, but your side has lost. Dirty energy's costs to society have been accepted by everyone but some industry shills and people on their payroll.

Were these guys playing with stats to make a point? Sure seems like it. Is this an example of "debunking global warming?" no.

that's why in your Statistics 101 course there's always a chapter called "Lying With Statistics." And frankly, I hope they do get tarred and feathered to the extent they knowingly tried to manipulate the data to prove a point (that remains to be seen).

Nevertheless, they are just a few people.

Contrarians Using Hacked E-mails To Try to Fool Public on Climate Science | Union of Concerned Scientists

Science flourishes in an atmosphere of transparency and free and open dissent. Suppressing legitimate scientific dissent is wrong. However, it is not clear from the purloined e-mails that the scientists involved actually attempted to hinder the free exchange of scientific information.


The most troubling messages refer to deleting e-mails to avoid disclosure in the event of a freedom of information request. If such deletions did occur, that would be a serious breach of scientific ethics and public trust. The author of the emails, Phil Jones, has stated that he never actually "deleted any emails or data."



The University of East Anglia is investigating this matter and, in the meantime, Jones has temporarily stepped down from his post at the school.

/sigh

1. Look up the EPA and see who they rely on for their position. (hint:IPCC)

2. Look up the IPCC AR4. Now, check who the authors of the core foundation of the position relies on. What data do they use?
(hint: Jones, Mann, Briffa, Santer... data: CRU "value added")

3. Phil jones stated in the guardian:

Climatologist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims | Environment | The Guardian

Quote:
"Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that."
East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=940&filename=1228330629.txt - broken link)

Quote:
If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all.
You need to do some more reading into the issue, not simply running off to pro-AGW sites that are circling the wagons and giving out canned responses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2009, 04:06 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,713,021 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
No, you're obfuscating the point because you clearly have not read in detail what the "scandal" is about. Private emails are just that, and people talk differently in them than they would otherwise - and cherrypicking a few emails out of thousands is manipulative in and of itself.

As one statistician put it - let's say you flip a coin 1,000 times. odds are you're going to get 5 heads in a row at some point. now, an unethical manipulative type could pull that string of 5 results and say "See? The coin was fixed!"

So what the scientists are being accused of is in fact exactly what the accusers are doing.

Again, I do not condone it - but 2 scientists jabbering about whether or not to include one particular set of data is not manipulating the data itself, and does not in any way change the bottom line, which is the earth is warming at a pace never before seen in human history. As to their "attitudes," again, irrelevant to the big picture. See the latest press release below:


Statement from the UK science community - Times Online

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".


How exactly did they get to be THE "science community" of the U.K? I note that the list includes students, and in fact most of the signatures don't appear to have Ph.D.s. So what right do they have to call themselves THE science community of the U.K.? How pretentious is that?

There is heavy reliance on the ad populum fallacy in the alarmist camp. "THE science community of the U.K." is over playing it's cards, and pretending there is more certainty than what the data suggests. Tree rings and ice cores aren't as reliable as they would suggest.

To be clear, I'm not a denier, so much as a person who says the jury is still out, and there is strong economic and political motives for people to pretend the issue settled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top