U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 12-15-2009, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,247 posts, read 4,427,169 times
Reputation: 2355

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
FYI, the primary cause of that is nitrates from agriculture. Stop growing food? We could probably slash production by half but millions if not billions might starve outside of this country if we did that. Sound like a plan?

See how hard it gets to fix these problems? It's easy to say lets stop doing X but without an adequate and practical alternative the problem is not that easy to solve.
Actually, simply cutting of subsidies to agribusiness would help right off the bat. Growing unhealthy crops for export at the expense of killing fish other people rely on to feed themselves isn't really a smart (or more importantly, sustainable) tradeoff. And do you really want to talk about corn syrup? Genetically modified crops that have been banned in Europe, etc?

Back to the topic of the hackers, maybe this will help sort out of the details & fact from fiction:

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...s-12-09-09.pdf
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2009, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
16,405 posts, read 22,669,093 times
Reputation: 12600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
You know, correlation doesn't prove causation. (actually, you don't even have a correlation here, you only have the general idea that CO2 ppm and temperature are both allegedly rising at the same time. But it's not tightly correlated.)

Lets assume that Co2 has went up, while temp has risen. Does this mean that Co2 CAUSED the temp to go up? Nope. One could as easily say "women's rights increased at the same time the temperature has increased. Therefore, women's rights are causing the temperature to increase."

Correlation doesn't prove causation. (And it's not really correlated, anyway.) In order to prove causation, you also need to show that there were no intervening third variables.

And that parts pretty much a guess right now.
Ah, yes, that old fallacy of reasoning that is SO old it's even in Latin:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Mankind has fallen prey to this probably since we first started reasoning. When we have something invested in the outcome (be it money or ego or politics or the need to be "right"), it's all more likely to appear.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 09:55 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 14,300,917 times
Reputation: 3659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
You know, correlation doesn't prove causation. (actually, you don't even have a correlation here, you only have the general idea that CO2 ppm and temperature are both allegedly rising at the same time. But it's not tightly correlated.)

Lets assume that Co2 has went up, while temp has risen. Does this mean that Co2 CAUSED the temp to go up? Nope. One could as easily say "women's rights increased at the same time the temperature has increased. Therefore, women's rights are causing the temperature to increase."

Correlation doesn't prove causation. (And it's not really correlated, anyway.) In order to prove causation, you also need to show that there were no intervening third variables.

And that parts pretty much a guess right now.

So what you're saying is that Women's Lib caused Global Warming... I agree 100%! All them ^%$@!! hot women strutting their stuff out in public. Now WONDER the snow is all melting!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 11:50 AM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,782,152 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
You guys just keep spinning your wheels - the global temperature is increasing (and I have posted ample evidence), the oceans are getting more acidic (ditto), and we need to act.

if not allowing people to poison my air & water is "pushing an agenda," so be it.

regarding Jones, he will hang in the court of public opinion if it's determined he actually manipulated data. I have no way of knowing if he deleted emails or not, but him deleting an email is irrelevant to the overwhelming amount of other research (not modeling - learn the difference) out there.

but this kind of malarkey is why where we're at:

"False, the US has some of the tightest regulations on the planet and has reduced air pollution by 54% since 1980."

Great - unfortunately, that's still not good enough.

You sound like this guy who was caught dumping a million gallons of toxic chemicals into a river, and the excuse given was "it's not nearly as much as they used to dump!"

So many straw man arguments... yes, you do like to set them up so you can knock them down, unfortunately, this isn't a game.

Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
You have provided ample claims, we have contested those claims and rather than responding to them directly to contest them, you post again and vaguely refer to them as wrong, straw mans, etc...

So, this will be the third time I have responded to your claim made previously. I posted:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
/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.
So what is your response? Are you saying that the IPCC is a valid source when it relies heavily on data and research which is in severe question at the moment? Wouldn't it be prudent on your part to then find alternative sources? Good luck unless you go to the research level and hand pick them as most of the administrations out there link to the IPCC as their evidence and not to mention, you actually might have to learn a bit about the topic you are discussing if you do that. Would I be correct in assuming a big "fat chance" that you will?

Also, please comment on Jones response. As you can see, he publicly made claim that he never deleted ANY emails at the CRU, and then we have validation that he claims he did in the CRU emails recovered.

loose accusations will not be accepted here. You must contest the information showing support for your position. You can not wave it off and make accusations. This would be exactly what you are claiming we are doing.

I know it angers you that we have broken your stride in uncontested accusations, and it certainly weakens your biased position on pushing environmental legislation, but your emotions on the issue are irrelevant. The more you keep using fallacious tactics to avoid dealing with directly contested information, the more you show yourself to be deviously involved in your position.

More specifically, your credibility is in question. You can defend it by actually dealing with the content of the discussion or be shown to all here that you are politically motivated to pushing a bias, unethically.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2009, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,247 posts, read 4,427,169 times
Reputation: 2355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Are you saying that the IPCC is a valid source when it relies heavily on data and research which is in severe question at the moment? Wouldn't it be prudent on your part to then find alternative sources? Good luck unless you go to the research level and hand pick them as most of the administrations out there link to the IPCC as their evidence and not to mention, you actually might have to learn a bit about the topic you are discussing if you do that. Would I be correct in assuming a big "fat chance" that you will?

Also, please comment on Jones response. As you can see, he publicly made claim that he never deleted ANY emails at the CRU, and then we have validation that he claims he did in the CRU emails recovered.

loose accusations will not be accepted here. You must contest the information showing support for your position. You can not wave it off and make accusations. This would be exactly what you are claiming we are doing.
loose accusations are exactly the issue here, thanks.

It's really just this simple:

The East Anglian researchers are not in any way, shape, or form the sole (or even the main) contributors to decades of climate change related research.

That includes the IPCC, NASA, and all of those other scientific organizations I've posted links to. You haven't even attempted to argue with those points, as of course that's not your agenda. Your agenda is to confuse people by continuing to willfully misrepresent what the issues with the hacked emails are.

here's a fine non-partisan site:

“Climategate” | FactCheck.org

The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ - broken link)) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. There are two investigations underway, by the U.K.’s Met Office and East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has "stepped aside (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78296617.html - broken link)" until they are completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2009, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,247 posts, read 4,427,169 times
Reputation: 2355
oh, and more from that link:

Some critics claim that the e-mails invalidate the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world scientific body that reaffirmed in a 2007 report that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising and that human activity is "very likely" the cause of "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century." But the IPCC’s 2007 report, its most recent synthesis of scientific findings from around the globe, incorporates data from three working groups, each of which made use of data from a huge number of sources — of which CRU was only one. The synthesis report notes key disagreements and uncertainties but makes the "robust" conclusion that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." (A robust finding is defined as "one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties.") The IPCC has released a statement playing down the notion that CRU scientists skewed the world body’s report or kept it from considering the views of skeptical scientists:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.
The facts support this assertion. In one 2004 e-mail (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=.txt - broken link) that’s come under much scrutiny, Jones wrote of two controversial papers that "Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" But both papers under discussion, Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004), were cited in one of the three working group reports from which the 2007 IPCC report is synthesized.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2009, 03:26 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,782,152 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
loose accusations are exactly the issue here, thanks.

It's really just this simple:

The East Anglian researchers are not in any way, shape, or form the sole (or even the main) contributors to decades of climate change related research.

That includes the IPCC, NASA, and all of those other scientific organizations I've posted links to. You haven't even attempted to argue with those points, as of course that's not your agenda. Your agenda is to confuse people by continuing to willfully misrepresent what the issues with the hacked emails are.

here's a fine non-partisan site:

“Climategate” | FactCheck.org

The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ - broken link)) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. There are two investigations underway, by the U.K.’s Met Office and East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has "stepped aside (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78296617.html - broken link)" until they are completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.
/sigh

Take a look for instance the issue concerning Jones and "mikes nature trick". They use Jones defense as evidence? How in the heck is that fact checking? Who knows if they are biased, fact check tends to be rather incompetent quite often.





First off, lets look at what your "factcheck" site claims:

Quote:
The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements.

Let me show you facts of the actual issue here:

The Trick « Climate Audit

Now, what did "Mike" do?

Quote:
In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).
Sure is a "clever" thing to do. Lets ask Mike what he thought about this "clever" trick when confronted about it.

Quote:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
Hmm, maybe he better talk with Jones on that one?

Fact check needs to check facts, not simply ask those implicated for an excuse to which they run with and print, and that is exactly what type of evidence "Factcheck" is using as its sources. They need to look at the data and verify the issue, they have not and while I won't "accuse" them of being biased, it sure looks like lousy investigative work to me.

Read the McIntyre's response concerning the "trick",

Here is a lot more links from his discussions on it.

Replicating the "Trick" Diagram « Climate Audit
Mike’s Nature trick « Climate Audit

Oh and a tid bit related to the IPCC and the trick:
IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit

Any comments on the... "facts"?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2009, 03:29 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,782,152 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
oh, and more from that link:

Some critics claim that the e-mails invalidate the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world scientific body that reaffirmed in a 2007 report that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising and that human activity is "very likely" the cause of "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century." But the IPCC’s 2007 report, its most recent synthesis of scientific findings from around the globe, incorporates data from three working groups, each of which made use of data from a huge number of sources — of which CRU was only one. The synthesis report notes key disagreements and uncertainties but makes the "robust" conclusion that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." (A robust finding is defined as "one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties.") The IPCC has released a statement playing down the notion that CRU scientists skewed the world body’s report or kept it from considering the views of skeptical scientists:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.
The facts support this assertion. In one 2004 e-mail (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=.txt - broken link) that’s come under much scrutiny, Jones wrote of two controversial papers that "Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" But both papers under discussion, Kalnay and Cai (2003) and McKitrick and Michaels (2004), were cited in one of the three working group reports from which the 2007 IPCC report is synthesized.

Here is the issues that have gone on with the IPCC since 2005.

Any thoughts?


2005

The Significance of the Hockey Stick « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

A Strange Truncation of the Briffa MXD Series « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 1[1990] – Comment #1 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 1990 – An Extended Excerpt « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 1992 – Supplement « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 1995 [SAR] – An Extended Excerpt « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Wigley and Kelly 1990 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Crowley and Kim, 1995 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Procedures « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Conflict of Interest #1 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Conflict of Interest #2 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Crowley and North [1991] « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Ian Castles on IPCC Economic Assumptions « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Mosquitos, malaria and the IPCC "consensus" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

2006

IPCC 4AR and Ammann « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 4AR – Access to Review Comments « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC WG1 Publication deadlines « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Acceptance Dates « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and Glaciers « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

2007

IPCC and Solar Correlations « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Schedule: WG1 Report Available Only to Insiders Until May 2007 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fixing the Facts to the Policy « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

SPM4 Preview: The Hockey Stick Lives « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

SPM4 Eve « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

SPM and Proxies « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Paleoclimate Lead Author on M&M « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Report on IPCC WG1 Session « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

The "First" Assessed Likely Range for Climate Sensitivity « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Hansen Calls IPCC Adjustments "Ad Hoc" and of "Dubious Validity" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and Data Access « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC AR4 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and the Al Gore Hockey Stick « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Swindle and Inconvenient Divergence « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

von Storch et al 2004 in IPCC AR4 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

More on the Divergence Problem « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

The Maestro is in da house « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Briffa and MBH99 Smoothing « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Swindle and the IPCC TAR Spaghetti Graph « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Cunning IPCC Bureaucrats « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

FOI Request to NOAA « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC: AR4 guidance on uncertainty « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

How IPCC AR4 authors defended the Briffa data deletions « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Review Comments Now Online « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and the Briffa Deletions « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

The New "IPCC Test" for Long-Term Persistence « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Review Comments on the "IPCC Test" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC AR4: No skill in scientific forecasting « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC AR4 and the Return of Chucky – He's Baaack! « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Figure SPM.1 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

2008

IPCC on Radiative Forcing #1: AR1(1990) « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC: "Lively Interchanges" as a Form of Due Diligence « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

AR4: "Now-Classic" Results on Cloud Uncertainty are "Unsettling" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and Radiative Forcing #2: 1992-AR2 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC "Explains" the Greenhouse Effect « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Sir John Houghton on the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Review Editor Comments « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

More on Functional Forms: Wigley 1987 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Radiative Forcing #1 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Did IPCC Review Editor Mitchell Do His Job? « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Review Editors Comments Online « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

"No Working Papers", "No Correspondence" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Where did IPCC 1990 Figure 7c Come From? « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

AR 4 Chapter 6 – "In Press" and "Accepted" Articles « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fortress Met Office « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fortress CRU « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fortress CRU #2: Confidential Agent Ammann « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fortress Met Office continued « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

2009

EPA Quality Guidelines: the NAS Panel and IPCC « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Boundary Layer Clouds: IPCC Bowdlerizes Bony « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

WGIII and those unarchived comments and RE reports « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Yamal and IPCC AR4 Review Comments « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

AR4 WGIII Lead Authors' Responses online – at last! « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,247 posts, read 4,427,169 times
Reputation: 2355
yup, when you got nothin' to say just try and pile on links to pretend you have a point. let's take a look at the author behind Climate Audit:

Stephen McIntyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
McIntyre worked for 30 years in the mineral business,[2] the last part of these in the hard-rock mineral exploration as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies.[3] He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[4] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[5]


Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.

conflict of interest, anyone? gosh, what he stand to gain (or lose) in a debate about the role of fossil fuels warming the planet...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2009, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,247 posts, read 4,427,169 times
Reputation: 2355
before you waste any more time flooding this site with misinformation & embarrassing yourselves further, I'd suggest you take a look here:

Global warming skeptics - SourceWatch

and also here:

Climate change skeptics/common claims and rebuttal - SourceWatch
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.


 
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 $84,000 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top