backtop


Print 116 comment(s) - last by Stacey Melissa.. on Jul 15 at 12:46 PM


  (Source: Newsbusters)
University hopes conspiracies will end

An inquiry launched by the University of East Anglia in eastern England has confirmed that the e-mails stolen from its Climatic Research Unit revealed no evidence that the case for human-affected global warming is false.

"Climategate," as this controversy has been called, started in November 2009 when hackers broke into the university's climate research unit's system and leaked thousands of e-mails and other documents onto the Internet. Through review of the leaked e-mails, climate change skeptics have accused the research unit of misconduct, saying that they've withheld scientific information, deleted and/or manipulated raw data to make the case for global warming seem stronger than it really is, and interfered with the peer-review process to prevent those who disagree with the case of global warming from publishing scientific research.

A previous investigation in April concluded that there was no malpractice, and on Wednesday, after the third investigation was led by former civil servant Muir Russell, it was decided that the e-mails contained no proof that would ruin the case for manmade global warming. Also, Russell's defense of the Climatic Research Unit noted that e-mails "put forward" by the United Nations'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not contain anything that would undermine the concept of human-caused global warming either.

Words in the e-mails like "hide the decline" and "trick" were what set the skeptics off and push them to voice concerns all over blogs and other forms of media. But the report said "hide the decline" was just misleading and the word "trick" was possibly shorthand for a significant mathematical approach to a problem.

But the scientists were also criticized for not responding to questions about climate change data openly under Britain's freedom of information laws. 

"Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt," the report said. "We did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC. 

"We found a tendency to answer the wrong question or to give a partial answer."

Edward Acton, the university's vice chancellor, was pleased with the inquiry's findings and hopes it ends any remaining "conspiracy theories and untruths" being passed around the Internet and in the media. Police are continuing to search for the hackers who leaked the e-mails.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/8/2010 7:35:29 PM , Rating: 5
Big tobacco finished an internal investigation and concluded smoking is NOT bad for your health, nor is it addictive. That is all.
Smoke em if ya got em!




RE: In other news....
By KeithP on 7/8/2010 7:45:00 PM , Rating: 4
LOL...we looked into ourselves and as it turns out, we discovered we were right.

-KeithP


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/8/2010 7:57:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
we looked into ourselves and as it turns out, we discovered we were right.

The climate scientists didn't investigate themselves. It was an independent investigation led by Muir Russell.


RE: In other news....
By DigitalFreak on 7/8/2010 8:31:43 PM , Rating: 4
Who was also a former government man.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 3
"So? He had no conflict of interest. That's the important part."

Would LOVE to see you actually prove that. Don't most of these scientists have grants from the government and other places that stand to get vastly rich off global warming?


RE: In other news....
By alanore on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 11:55:42 AM , Rating: 3
"Would LOVE to see you prove otherwise"

I don't have to, I didn't make such a bold statement.

"How does the government get "vastly rich off global warming"?"

With a question like this, it's pointless to even bother.


RE: In other news....
By alanore on 7/9/2010 12:02:46 PM , Rating: 1
So you can't prove otherwise and you can't prove that the government is going to get "vastly rich off global warming". I guess the real question is why you even bothered to respond.


RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 12:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
"I guess the real question is why you even bothered to respond. "

I could ask you the same as you can't prove it either.
We need some fresh kiddies in the sandbox now.


RE: In other news....
By tastyratz on 7/9/2010 12:51:13 PM , Rating: 5
What are you people soft?
Anyone involved in the research and development stands to gain from more research and development. What do you think fudging your numbers will do.

Scenario 1:
We found that this craps been going on for thousands of years without us, and we really cant prove we had a damn thing to do with it.
Government response? ok cool thanks thats all we needed you for.

Scenario 2: OMG every time a cow farts a penguin gets a sunburn! we all need to stop farming and eat cattle NOW. Nobody drive cars!!!

government response? omg your kidding, here's 23423423432 million more towards your research, we want to know MOAR. In the meantime, lets elect and hire our buddies to fabricate environmental divisions dedicated towards this. Its only taxpayer money. As long as you buy me a few Lamborghini's I will sign off on it (lobby funding is the pc name for bribes).


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: In other news....
By tastyratz on 7/9/2010 7:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
There's no government response to this? Where could you possibly miss the hot button topic behind so much proposed legislation in the past and future?

There's no agenda behind my post, but there certainly is an agenda behind all those who stand to gain from a carbon tax and newer "greener" devices designed to displace. This is an entire industry waiting to benefit and gain from this.

Who is bribing/getting bribed you say? Who isn't? Do you live in a fantasy world where the government makes decisions based on the good of the people and senate seats cant essentially be bought?. For the incredible potential financial gain many stand to profit from I cant even begin to fathom the number of greased pockets already exist from this.

And carbon tax - who stands to gain from that? The people? Will the money truly go towards the people? Or in reality will it be given to said new government division or lost in some other department while only rising costs for consumers.

This company knowingly fudged numbers, dodged answers, conspired to hide unbiased evidence, and acted completely unprofessional. Their credit in argument proving global warming exists holds the same validity as it does proving unicorns exist. What was leaked were the true details of their scandal - Oops I mean research.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 8:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
"U.S. political contributions from from Oil & Gas industry in 2009: $174.7 million, mostly to Republicans. From Alternative Energy (including ethanol): $31.6 million, mostly to Dems. I went into more detail in another post to straycat74, timestamped "7/9/2010 7:17:02 PM". The numbers speak for themselves."

I see you didn't point out where Obama got all that money from BP?

Selective reporting. You just happen to leave out many things from your articles if it casts your opinion in any doubt.
Nice try but many of us aren't as naive as you would like us to believe you are.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/15/2010 9:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see you didn't point out where Obama got all that money from BP?

I hadn't been aware of that. Your claim checks out, though. Insofar as Obama supports traditionally Republican ideas on energy, those contributions may be a contributing factor (no pun intended).

Here's more info about BP political contributions overall: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D00...

As you can see, the vast majority of BP contributions have went to Republicans. Obama has indeed been the largest individual benefactor, though. His $77,051 tops runner-up Rep. Don Young's (R-Alaska) $73,300. McCain came in 5th with $44,899. Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D...

The overall BP contributions split in the last 20 years was 71/29%, in favor of Republicans. Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D00...

Is that a fact that you just conveniently happened to leave out? Or were you merely naive?

Here's another. In the 2008 pres. election, McCain got $2,402,937 from Oil & Gas, while Obama got $898,251. Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=E...

quote:
You just happen to leave out many things from your articles if it casts your opinion in any doubt.

Why do people keep talking about my "articles"? I'm only making some posts here. Are y'all confusing me with the DailyTech writer Tiffany Kaiser?


RE: In other news....
By tastyratz on 7/9/2010 10:35:06 PM , Rating: 3
Its a rather naive way to view it. Call me Cynical but The government doesn't tax for charity, I think a large part of that money wouldn't go to alternative energy even if that was the proposed legislation. By the time it reached the last signature it would be riddled with pork barrels even if it was created with direct intentions (unlikely).

A lot of people are starving too but doesn't mean I didn't have a delightful dinner. Broad summarizing of all political contributions from all oil vs all alternative energy is really taken out of context. Lots of people in lots of areas take lots of... "contributions"

We wont benefit from a carbon tax. What will happen is the price of all current generation affordable energy technologies will become less affordable. We have a reliance on these energy sources and it may sound noble to move to alternative energy, the reality is its not there yet or affordable without MAJOR subsidization. Playing robin hood in a fragile economy is NOT the solution! We don't need another tax with the people hemorrhaging money and the government not changing their ways.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/15/2010 12:46:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Call me Cynical but The government doesn't tax for charity, I think a large part of that money wouldn't go to alternative energy even if that was the proposed legislation. By the time it reached the last signature it would be riddled with pork barrels even if it was created with direct intentions (unlikely).

I think you're most likely right about that. That's not something that really bothers me, though. I don't think excise taxes particularly need to fund alternatives to whatever is being taxed. People (me included) say "legalize pot, and tax the hell out of it for revenue!" - without qualifiers like funding more D.A.R.E. officers and whatnot. I just want the revenue to improve government budgets in general.

quote:
We wont benefit from a carbon tax.

I certainly don't think a carbon tax should be added during the recession. Afterward is a different story.

The deal with a carbon tax is that we'd be paying for the real cost of the carbon upfront, and as we go, instead of paying a little for the energy now, and a lot for the cleanup later. That would make environmental repair costs factor into people's energy purchase decisions. The cost in the end would be about the same. The benefit would be from incentivizing people to switch to energy sources that have a lower long-term cost than carbon.


RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 8:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
" Complete nonsense gets rated up, just because some readers agree with the agenda that is pushed by it. "

Sad thing is, the same can be said of people with your view point. Even more sad are the ones like you that don't see any problem as long as your side is doing it.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/15/2010 11:04:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sad thing is, the same can be said of people with your view point. Even more sad are the ones like you that don't see any problem as long as your side is doing it.

Gee, thanks for the incorrect assumption that I don't see anything wrong with people spouting nonsense that I agree with (as if I would knowingly agree with nonsense) and getting rated up for it.

On the AGW issue, one side clearly and consistently wins the DailyTech post ratings battle, though. My suspicion is that, some months ago, a call was put out on an extremist conservative website or two, to flood DT with posts and votes in favor of their opinions, and against opposing opinions. If polls are any indication, the opinion of the broader American public regarding AGW doesn't track at all with the makeup of the opinions of DT posters and voters.


RE: In other news....
By psychmike on 7/10/2010 11:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you, but there's no point discussing issues on Daily Tech that involve any kind of political perspective. Many of the most frequent and vitriolic posters aren't interested in discussion; they're only interested in using innuendo and shaky logic to justify what they already believe: That government should be involved only in defense and that regulation is bad. Anyone who says anything to the contrary is in their opinion is simply naive at best and oppressive of others' rights at worst.

I've read many of the emails in question. Clearly, they're defensive. But people do get personal about their research. I didn't read anything that showed that they engaged in manipulation of their data. Now that the university has cleared them of wrong-doing, cynics are simply shouting conspiracy. Somehow, cries of conspiracy never seem to go the other way towards corporate claims. Shuuuuuure. Offshore drilling is safe. Just a couple of years ago, this same lobby was shouting, "Drill baby, drill!"

I have done primary research in my life. I know how hard it is to understand the complex issues in my small field. To a large extent, we as laypeople have to trust the sources of our information to gather and interpret data for us. That faith should not be blind, but nor should the cynical response to it be unanswerable. I have no problem with people asking tough questions regarding facts. I have serious problems with people selectively disregarding contrasting information and then claiming to be rational.


RE: In other news....
By knutjb on 7/11/2010 1:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've read many of the emails in question. Clearly, they're defensive. But people do get personal about their research. I didn't read anything that showed that they engaged in manipulation of their data. Now that the university has cleared them of wrong-doing, cynics are simply shouting conspiracy. Somehow, cries of conspiracy never seem to go the other way towards corporate claims. Shuuuuuure. Offshore drilling is safe. Just a couple of years ago, this same lobby was shouting, "Drill baby, drill!"
It was the politicians who pushed the drilling from very safe depths to unknown regions. The Feds did so so they could get the royalties, drilling at 500ft as per the original request and the royalties would go to LA and not the Feds. Just another facet to the big leak.

I don't want zero regulation but the horribly misguided belief that bureaucrats and politicians will always keep things straight and that companies are always bad is baffling and irrational. Politicians write laws that frequently create new problems when trying to fix other problems and are rarely held accountable. Nothing is as simple as it seems.


RE: In other news....
By knutjb on 7/11/2010 1:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
How much do nameless environmental groups spend to stop companies in court when companies are following the rules. No wonder they have to lobby so hard. How much are environmentalist spending on lobbying against energy?

Its a complex issue, but I don't want to kill our economy over bad science. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/15/2010 12:12:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How much do nameless environmental groups spend to stop companies in court when companies are following the rules.

I doubt it's much. Nameless groups with little money aren't exactly known for legal harassment of multi-billion dollar corporations with armies of lawyers. Usually, it's the other way around. See RIAA, MPAA, etc. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it.

quote:
How much are environmentalist spending on lobbying against energy?

Environmental lobbyists spent a peak of $21,848,460 in 2009. Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?y...

That compares to $174,713,324 for Oil & Gas. Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?y...

Speaking of that $174.7 million figure... I need to correct an earlier post I made here, in which I cited that number as political contributions for 2009. In fact, it was lobbying money. The real Oil & Gas contributions were $35,690,662 in 2008. The real Alternative Energy contributions in 2008 (including ethanol) were $1,992,443. Not the $31.6 million I had previously cited. That figure was also for 2009 lobbying, rather than 2008 contributions. I apologize for the mix-up.

quote:
Its a complex issue, but I don't want to kill our economy over bad science.

Nor do I. I don't think the addition of lots green jobs will kill the economy, though, even if we make the assumption that it's all based on bad science. I do think a carbon tax would be bad for the economy we're in right now, although that will change once it recovers. It's a bad idea to increase taxes on low- and middle-class people during a recession. While we're in a recession, I think green jobs should be deficit financed. That could be paid back with a carbon tax later on.


RE: In other news....
By bigdawg1988 on 7/10/2010 1:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
But wouldn't the oil and coal companies pay more if you proved there is no man-made global warming? And they probably have better hookers too.


RE: In other news....
By alanore on 7/9/2010 2:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know I can't prove that governments stand to gain vast sums of money from global warming, because the opposite is true. However, I can prove that.

The UK government has estimated that it would need to invest £200 Billion "to provide secure and sustainable energy sources and meet the 2020 carbon reduction commitments" How does spending that amount of money make the government vast sums?

Muir Russell's investigation was independent and transparent, there was consultations held at various stages. If you actually bothered to read the report you would know. However, if you can disprove that this was independent and unbias then launch an official complaint, if its upheld Sir Muir could be jailed. I doubt you could because you haven't even been able make one valid comment in this comments section.


RE: In other news....
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 3:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you actually bothered to read the report you would know.

Know what? That some of the most egregious charges leveled at the CRU by some people weren't accurate? Sure, but there were a lot of charges made by a lot of people, with a variance in the accuracy.

No, the guys at CRU shouldn't be thrown in jail or hung.

But their work is suspect. Their work that the inquiries weren't concerned with. Their work that has been criticized by various sources as sloppy or incomplete. Criticisms that the inquiries either support, or at worst, state that they didn't touch. The actual body of work produced by the CRU is outside the scope of any inquiry into "Climategate".

Both sides really need to put aside and ignore the leaked E-mails.


RE: In other news....
By alanore on 7/9/2010 3:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
There was a consolation at the beginning of the investigation where any serious questions could be asked. If CRU methods or science were flawed then why didn't the critic use this opportunity to stick the knife in?

The Russell report did look in the science at certain stages. As with any science the standard method of reviewing the science is via peer-review and criticism of the produced journal articles. These have been in the public domain for year and in some cases decades. If there was a real and obvious flaw then it would have been know long before this email leak.


RE: In other news....
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 4:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If CRU methods or science were flawed then why didn't the critic use this opportunity to stick the knife in?

If critics are out there, why don't climate change researchers pay attention to their criticisms? You're asking the wrong questions, bub; yours right there presupposes that AGW is "true" and that the impetus is on the critics to prove that it isn't. Hint: "Impossible to prove a negative" should be a mantra of yours.


RE: In other news....
By JediJeb on 7/9/2010 6:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah I know I can't prove that governments stand to gain vast sums of money from global warming, because the opposite is true. However, I can prove that.


Governments don't make the decisions, people within the government do, and there is the possibility that those people can make money from global warming. If someone in the government owns or knows someone that owns say a wind farm, which produces electricity that costs more than what is produced by a coal plant, then the people in the government can add subsidies to the wind energy to make it more marketable. In that way people within the government can gain vast sums of money from global warming legislation which must be supported by global warming research which says global warming is true and man made.

Not that the above is the case, but it does answer the question of how someone can make money off global warming and provides a reason why someone might wish to make their data fit a conclusion instead of their conclusion fit the data.


RE: In other news....
By DominionSeraph on 7/11/2010 9:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's a retarded example. You're looking at a MASSIVE expenditure of political capital for practically no gain.

A Congressman or Senator can funnel money directly into their states through pork barrel projects. Their wealthy friends will reap the rewards, or it will gain them wealthy friends. So they're growing or cementing their power.

Contrast this with a national subsidy on clean power. The Congressman or Senator cannot take sole credit because it affects the nation and every Congressman or Senator would have had their hands in it. A wind farm operator in their state would thus owe them nothing for it -- it would be a boon from the nation, not from them. Also it's gonna piss off the Old Money who're positioned to reap maximum gain from the status quo. Creating opportunities for New Money means that Old Money has to stop sipping daquiris at their beach house and get back in the office and do real work for the first time in ages or face the possibility of being left behind.

There's a reason why Republicans are against change.

Democrats are beholden to the People, not Old Money corporations, so shifting the potential for riches doesn't affect their power base.

In no case is there a reason to lie that global warming is occurring. The Republican, OTOH, will find it politically expedient to be resistant to any change. (If we get fusion in 50 years after wind, solar, and biofuels are fully established, you'll see Republicans shilling for Old Money clean energy while Democrats are pushing fusion.)


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other news....
By straycat74 on 7/9/2010 6:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are no governments getting vastly rich off of global warming. I'm trying to think of any government that is vastly rich at all, and which does not derive their revenue primarily from oil production. Nothing comes to mind. Furthermore, there is no incentive for elected government officials to make government vastly rich. Monarchs who can just hoard the money for themselves, sure, but not elected officials.


You can't be that simple. They don't fill the vaults with money, they take it(TAX), and spend it on lining the pockets of the people/groups that support them, and to fund their pet projects. The hoarding occurs in as much as they know the citizens will have to pay the ever increasing taxes to fund whatever they want. In other words, the money doesn't have to sit in a vault. The vault is us.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other news....
By straycat74 on 7/9/2010 8:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if we're assessing things based on the influence of political contributions, I think I easily win the debate.

You think to small. Global warming legislation leads to higher taxes on energy and expands from there.

There really are too many places to start. You need to understand the elitism of government who want to control thought and behavior. To have us do what is "good" for us. And to not do the things that are "bad" for us. For the common good. They believe they know what is best, and will force it upon us, for our own good, because we don't know any better. It all equals less freedom for the individual, geared toward whatever sacrifices are necessary for the common good.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/15/2010 12:29:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Global warming legislation leads to higher taxes on energy and expands from there.

I know the taxation part already, but please, tell me... Where and how does it expand from there?

quote:
You think to small.

I hope you can forgive me for thinking in the small, kickback, quid pro quo, terms that you led me to think in with your comment: "[They] spend it on lining the pockets of the people/groups that support them, and to fund their pet projects." That was the topic you were talking about, until it turned out that I won the debate on that topic.

But hey, if you can't win the debate, just move the goalposts to something much broader, and yet much more vague, eh? Like...

quote:
You need to understand the elitism of government who want to control thought and behavior. To have us do what is "good" for us. And to not do the things that are "bad" for us. For the common good. They believe they know what is best, and will force it upon us, for our own good, because we don't know any better. It all equals less freedom for the individual, geared toward whatever sacrifices are necessary for the common good.

That must be quite an interesting dynamic. The same people who nefariously line the pockets of their nefarious supporters, are the same people who are only trying to force on us what they think is best for us, misguided though they are? Is that about right? Let me know when I should put on my tin foil hat.


RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 6:07:10 PM , Rating: 1
"According to the Wikipedia"

We all know Wiki is rock solid.
This isn't proof, sorry, try again.

If you can't see where any gov. would reap massive "rewards" from global warming, you seriously need to find another line of work/hobby.

"Monarchs who can just hoard the money for themselves, sure, but not elected officials. "

This shows how .....naive..... you are.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/2010 6:31:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We all know Wiki is rock solid.
This isn't proof, sorry, try again.

All I quoted Wikipedia for was Russell's career overview and current retirement status. If you think that info is too controversial to grab from Wikipedia, then I don't know what to say to you.

quote:
If you can't see where any gov. would reap massive "rewards" from global warming, you seriously need to find another line of work/hobby.

How about you just explain it to me, instead? If it's so obvious, explaining it shouldn't be a problem.


RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 6:33:37 PM , Rating: 1
No, no, I want you to be a free thinker. You posted this article, you figure it out.

See my post about ScottishPower.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/2010 7:50:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, no, I want you to be a free thinker. You posted this article, you figure it out.

I didn't post any article about government reaping massive rewards from AGW. That was your claim (without any attached article reference), and it's what I'm asking you to explain.

quote:
See my post about ScottishPower.

Since 2007, Muir Russell has been on an advisory board for ScottishPower, which is a big electric and gas utility that promotes alternative energy. Whether that means he has a financial stake, I don't know for sure, although I seriously doubt it. He continued with his university job until retirement in Oct. 2009, so I'm assuming there's little, if any payment from ScottishPower for serving on their advisory board.


RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 8:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
"I don't know for sure, although I seriously doubt it."

So, you piece an article together, reference Wiki, don't do any deeper research and now you speculate? WOW!

"ScottishPower, which is a big electric and gas utility that promotes alternative energy"

You now downplay ScottishPower as only a PROMOTER of green energy.
Let me post from their website: http://www.scottishpower.com/Vision.htm

About Us
Vision

This is an exciting stage in the development of ScottishPower.

As an integrated energy provider, we generate, transmit and distribute energy – right from the power station to the plug.

Today, we are the UK's LEADING SUPPLIER (I added caps) of green energy products to domestic and business customers and we aim to increase our renewable energy capacity in the UK to 1,000 MW by 2010.

Our vision is crystal clear:

‘to be the UK’s best integrated energy supplier and a world leader in renewables.’

Hardly just the utility that just promotes.
You also trust the gov. and people with possible monetary stake in green tech, investigative role and possibly poised to make a lot of money to be honest? Another WOW! No further digging, nothing at all. This is a prime example of why MSM is dying.
If Wiki said Haliburton made no money off the wars, would you eat it hook, line and sinker too?
REALITY CHECK!

I think when I click on another "article" with your name on it, I will pass.


RE: In other news....
By alanore on 7/10/2010 5:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
What a power company has a green vision? Which one now doesn't? Although in reality Scottish Powers generating portfolio consists mainly of Coal (They have the 3rd largest Coal plant in Europe) and Gas. There move of "going green" is simply embracing the change. Also there has been financial incentives from the government, which were available as part of the carbon reduction of Geneva and now Copenhagen. Part of the climate deal is to reduce carbon production, coupled with the growing trend of increased power consumption. So if your not allowed to build large coal/gas plant the logical move is towards wind/hydro, and it doesn't hurt the companies image in doing so. In fact some idiots look at their site while doing their "research" and fall hook line and sinker into thinking they are some eco-power company, which a little research would prove otherwise. One of their power stations gain the title of largest polluter in Scotland in 2003.

Muir Russell sat on the advisory board of Scottish power. I did enjoy that you just used the term "board" in the hope to fool some of us into thinking he was on the board of directors.

Just like our government MPs and Lords, Muir Russell had to declare any interest he may in other companies as well as any companies in which he holds shares. Do you honestly think that the person who selected Muir Russell was that retarded that he choose someone that was a major shareholder or was still employed by Scottish Power?

quote:
You also trust the gov. and people with possible monetary stake in green tech, investigative role and possibly poised to make a lot of money to be honest? Another WOW! No further digging, nothing at all.


Like I said any monetary involvement would have to be declared. If you can prove that this was not an independent investigation then that would result in prison time for those involved. So by all means keep to your "digging" although so far your tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theories have been shot to sh*t.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/15/2010 11:31:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You now downplay ScottishPower as only a PROMOTER of green energy.

Did I say "only"? No. That's just something you read into my comment. You (and plenty of others) seem to have a bad habit of doing that.

quote:
"I don't know for sure, although I seriously doubt it."

So, you piece an article together, reference Wiki, don't do any deeper research and now you speculate? WOW!

Gee, thanks for making incorrect assumptions about my research. In fact, I did plenty of digging (I looked through dozens of pages, including the one you referenced, before I found out whether Russell was still on the advisory board), and came away with the honest statement that I'm somewhat sure, but not entirely sure what to conclude. Being upfront about my degree of (un)certainty is just my style, given that I'm a genuine skeptic. I'm sorry if you can't handle that.

You still haven't explained your claim about government reaping massive rewards from AGW.

And I don't write articles for DT. My (nick)name is Stacey Melissa, not Tiffany Kaiser.


RE: In other news....
By damonlynch on 7/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other news....
By thinkthis on 7/9/2010 1:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
Great quote.


RE: In other news....
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 5:10:28 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
There have been five recent reviews done of leading climate change researchers. The science has been judged as sound

Incorrect; the reviews examined conduct only, and did NOT review the work they've done. Make no mistake, "Climategate" did not create the notion that the work itself is flawed. What it did is destroy the notions of "scientific consensus" and that "the science is settled", as some prominent pro-AGW marketers used to assert on a regular basis.

quote:
There is literally nothing that can convince them - neither logic nor overwhelming evidence will resonate with them.

Show me a single study confirming water's positive feedback effect that every pro-AGW study assumes, and you'll convince me... and thousands of others. Until such fundamental flaws in the work are addressed, the work itself is worthless.


RE: In other news....
By UnWeave on 7/9/2010 8:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me a single study...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1991Natur.349..500R
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI37...

There's a whole list of related papers here:

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/papers...

By the sound of it, you're after absolute confirmation that AGW is real. I'm afraid, in that case, science is not your answer.


RE: In other news....
By damonlynch on 7/9/2010 3:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Many commentators here ought read a decent book or two on the history of science instead of wasting their time and energy in attacking topics in which they are wholly ignorant.


RE: In other news....
By alanore on 7/9/2010 3:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
But the books don't support their outlook, so they just ignore them and cherry pick the ones(usually media) that do. Oh wait did I just use an anti-AGW argument?


RE: In other news....
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 3:25:51 PM , Rating: 3
A list of studies that are outdated (1991? Really?) or are specific in their study of water vapor (El Nino? Really?). Those studies also assert the "no slowing down" assertion that used to be popular with AGW advocates... an assertion that stopped when warming... slowed down.

quote:
By the sound of it, you're after absolute confirmation that AGW is real.

I have a high standard of evidence, yes. Many other controversial areas of scientific study have been capable of satisfying my standard of evidence. Yet the AGW hypothesis cannot.

Why you think I'm after "absolute confirmation" is beyond me. I used to support the AGW hypothesis. Back in the '90s and early '00s, I was firmly behind the notion that we're warming the planet. But I maintained a critical mind and kept myself appraised of all the information about AGW, both support and criticisms. And I found the body of evidence supporting AGW to be sloppy, contradictory, and full of holes and dishonesty. If you had a critical mind, you'd see the same. It's a shame you've decided to be dogmatic about this.


RE: In other news....
By UnWeave on 7/12/2010 7:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
I don't feel that, simply because a study is a few years old, its findings are then worthless. I chose that study to highlight the fact that papers supporting positive feedback have been around for a while.

My third link was the most useful and important, since it contained many newer studies; I don't expect you to go through and highlight a fault with each one, but you've only mentioned problems with two of them.

The absolute confirmation comment was perhaps foolish of me, since many seem to have picked up on it. It was only your wording, "... show me a single study confirming..." I was referring to. It was not my intention to be dogmatic, only to highlight that such studies do indeed exist, but as always then can only take us as far as "beyond reasonable doubt".

I do doubt AGW, to a certain extent - at no point did I mean to give the impression I firmly support/believe in AGW. Reading your comment, I decided to see if there was anything to be found on the matter, and lo-and-behold, there was. You're right in that the evidence is often contradictory, and the science itself is still young. Not being a climatologist myself, I leave it to them to do the understanding, and the general consensus in the community seems to be that AGW is real. I know there are many arguments for why this may be, and any bias due to external pressures, funding etc. aside, the "scientific consensus" has been wrong before. Still, with all this in mind, I'm currently leaning towards the AGW camp.

I hope that you now do not feel I am quite so dogmatic, or at least not as many other commenters here.


RE: In other news....
RE: In other news....
By JediJeb on 7/9/2010 6:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the sound of it, you're after absolute confirmation that AGW is real. I'm afraid, in that case, science is not your answer.


But without absolute confirmation that AGW is real, why would there be a problem with someone who does not believe it? Should someone believe AGW is real if there is not absolute scientific proof?

The fact is that argument can support both sides of the debate. Since there is data to support both sides, and data to refute both sides, then that would mean that the debate is not settled and neither side has proven themselves correct. The fact that one side may have a few more followers than the other only points to the conclusion being a political one and not a scientific one. The number of experts that believe something does not make a fact true or false. If it did, then that would mean that at one time the world was truly flat because at one time more experts thought it was than didn't.


RE: In other news....
By DominionSeraph on 7/13/2010 12:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The number of experts that believe something does not make a fact true or false. If it did, then that would mean that at one time the world was truly flat because at one time more experts thought it was than didn't.


But any correction is going to come from someone with expertise.

Let's say your computer is randomly rebooting. You go over to the Anandtech forums, and we tell you to check your CPU temps and run memtest. CPU temps appear fine, but memtest comes back with a few million errors. We tell you, "It looks like you have bad RAM. Swap sticks until the problem goes away."

At what point does Ricky Bobby from Alabama get a say in this?
"Dey be foolin' ya'. Memry don't go bad. You just ain't right with Jeeeeesus."

At what point does the fracking state legislature of Utah get a say in this? At what point does any resolution they put down on any piece of paper mean in any way that they know what the hell they're talking about?

We may not necessarily be right, but that doesn't mean that your average retard is in any position to be investigating the situation. Any fix to a faulty initial analysis is going to come from someone with more sum expertise+access, not less.

quote:
But without absolute confirmation that AGW is real, why would there be a problem with someone who does not believe it?


There's no such thing as absolute confirmation of a posteriori knowledge.
It isn't absolutely confirmed that your car exists.
It isn't absolutely confirmed that your computer exists.
It isn't absolutely confirmed that your parents exist.
It isn't absolutely confirmed that the Earth exists.

Theories are on even more shaky ground. Take, for example, the theory that your car runs on gas. That's based on the assumption that your car exists (not absolutely confirmed), gas exists (not absolutely confirmed), that your car moves (not absolutely confirmed), the theory that the universe operates by certain laws governing motion (not absolutely confirmed) which is based on other observations not absolutely confirmed to be valid, the not-absolutely-confirmed theory that gasoline possesses the necessary qualities to impart motion under those laws -- a conclusion based on other not-absolutely-confirmed-valid observations...

Philosophically, there's quite a few problems. Does that mean you shouldn't believe that your car runs on gas?
You didn't see me say that you had anything better to go on, did you?

That the best available is less than perfect is no reason to go with something else. It is the best because the other available alternatives are inferior. Leaving yourself in the dark as to their inferiority by failing to properly do analysis does not magically give you the chance that rolling a random die among them might leave you at something better.

"Science might be wrong. I know! I'll join Al-Quaeda! Allah will guide me to Paradise through Osama! Yes, the teachings of ignorant goatherders are a far better path to the truths of the universe than, say, actually looking at the universe with a practiced eye."

To properly do scientific inquiry takes a baseline of knowledge as to cognitive biases and the rigor to compensate. But your average Joe operates on an emotional wavelength and just goes with what 'feels' right.
You can't equate the results of these systems.


RE: In other news....
By alanore on 7/9/2010 3:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and did NOT review the work they've done.


Why are you spreading blatant dis-truths? Do you just take it the readers of this website are so stupid they would just believe something you say as being fact? or are you just misguided and feel the need drag others down with you? So much for enlightenment.

In terms of data collection, all of the data is available for the respective sources. The University was not the source. The selection of data stations the finding was it was "highly unlikely" and "highly improbable" that they were chosen to specifically support their findings. Independent scientific investigations shows that the average readings was within the range even using multiples sources (NASA NOAA)

The Muir Russell report also found that the statistical handling done by the UEA CRU was sound.

The Russell report looked specifically into allegations made against the UEA CRU as a result of the email leak. Including look at the science behind the selection of temperature stations. Not to mention that there has been countless publications, in the journal of climate, made by the CRU which out lines its scientific approaches, these have been in the public domain and open to criticism for year. All their articles were peer-reviewed and can be freely critiqued by other scientists. The caveat with this is that climate scientist had influence on what gets published, so could be biased as to what get published.

I think its ludicrous to state that this email scandal broke "scientific consensus" The UEA CRU is small, it only has 4 full time permanent staff. The actual field of climatology is relatively small too, most climatologist know each other well. This scandal was more of a media circus than an actual assault on the science, most of the findings and recommendation were to do with the abuse of the peer-review process, which will have an impact on the field. However it hasn't had far reaching effect on climate science, more how they deal with the media. The fact is the majority of climatologists is support the notion of man made global climate change. In fact I can think of a single one that changed their opinions.

I can only assume that you are unfamiliar with the scientific review process and you have not read the investigations into the UEA email scandal.


RE: In other news....
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why are you spreading blatant dis-truths?

You call it a "dis-truth", yet the rest of your post does not at all explain how it is a "dis-truth".

quote:
In terms of data collection, all of the data is available for the respective sources

Actually, every inquiry - including this most recent one - noted how the CRU did NOT make all of its data available. Further, comments from Phil Jones following the E-mail leak confirm that some of their original data no longer exists.

quote:
The Muir Russell report also found that the statistical handling done by the UEA CRU was sound.

Which contradicts earlier inquiries that found it shocking that they would perform such heavy statistical analysis without a statistician.

quote:
The Russell report looked specifically into allegations made against the UEA CRU as a result of the email leak.

Yes, exactly: It did NOT examine the work they've produced. Such a review would take years to do thoroughly. It examined their conduct only, as I stated above.

quote:
I think its ludicrous to state that this email scandal broke "scientific consensus

It is ludicrous; the notion of "scientific consensus" should never have been used as a metric, and common sense would see it as mere agenda-pushing propaganda.

quote:
The fact is the majority of climatologists is support the notion of man made global climate change.

A "fact" made more clear when you bear in mind that most who throw their support behind AGW hedge their bets with "if the data is accurate..." Like you said, the actual number of climate researchers is quite small... smaller than the number of scientists that are said to "support" it. The vast majority of scientists that "support" AGW, in fact, have absolutely no direct involvement in its study.

quote:
I can only assume that you are unfamiliar with the scientific review process and you have not read the investigations into the UEA email scandal.

And you would assume incorrectly. It is quite the hubris for you to think that anyone that is actually well-versed in the data and arguments about climate change would have the exact same opinion.


RE: In other news....
By alanore on 7/9/2010 5:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You call it a "dis-truth", yet the rest of your post does not at all explain how it is a "dis-truth".


Yes, it does. You asserted that the reviews did not look at the science. I stated that the Muir Russel inquiry did. If you need further proof then look at Chapters 6 and 7, as well as the appendixes of the Sir Muir Russell report.

quote:
noted how the CRU did NOT make all of its data available.


The CRU did not generate the temperature readings. They were from Weather stations, which have their data available to others, just because the CRU did not make that data available does not mean that it is not available. You also made reference to the missing locations to rural Chinese weather station data in the 1990 paper. (I'm quite surprised that you brought up a 1990s paper, as in another post you dismissed a paper because it was 1991, but I'll play along with your double standards) While it is probable that some of the location information may be wrong its overall effect is not dramatic, it just stands to increase the percentage of possible error. For those that are not aware the location of a weather station is important because as cities expand to near a temperature station it has a knock on effect. Jones asserted that any rise was because of global warming, he didn't account for expanding cities.

quote:
Which contradicts earlier inquiries that found it shocking that they would perform such heavy statistical analysis without a statistician.


You don't need to be a statistician to preform analysis. I worked for 2years as a data analyst and statistician, I had no other relevant education other than a degree in computing. That doesn't make my work wrong. I do concede that having a statistician would have been preferable, but not critical.

quote:
Yes, exactly: It did NOT examine the work they've produced. Such a review would take years to do thoroughly. It examined their conduct only, as I stated above.


As I've stated above the chapters in the Muir Russell report. I will repeat again, the standard method for science is that there is a peer-review of the science before the paper is published and then anyone can critique the science there-after. Obviously some one posting in a random tech forum has 0 bearing when compared to someone prominent in the field. It should not require independent investigation to prove science. The investigation was to inquest the leaked emails, it did have to cover some of the science to clear up some of the allegation. There hasn't been any independent into the LHC, are we to assume that the science is not sound there either?

quote:
It is ludicrous; the notion of "scientific consensus" should never have been used as a metric, and common sense would see it as mere agenda-pushing propaganda.


I agree that its an extremely poor metric. Stating that most people believe in god, so god exists is just a fallacy. However, when the vast majority of experts, possible over 90% of climatologist, are producing science with seems to state that climate change is a tangible thing. While a minority tend to just critique the works other than actually producing science to the contrary. The body of evidence is heavily weighted in one direction. A body of evidence on the other hand is a good metric (Good enough for the legal system)

quote:
And you would assume incorrectly. It is quite the hubris for you to think that anyone that is actually well-versed in the data and arguments about climate change would have the exact same opinion.


Apologies if you were just playing devils advocate, I jumped to a conclusion that you were ill informed.


RE: In other news....
By SPOOFE on 7/11/2010 8:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You asserted that the reviews did not look at the science.

In response to an assertion that the body of work was judged as sound by a review examining the researchers of that body of work. When I said the work itself wasn't "looked at", I meant to say that the work was not what was reviewed; the conduct of the researchers was reviewed. Taking their work into account is one thing; but reviewing the entirety of their work would take far too long and was not the focus of the study. I apologize for not being clear with that, I thought it would be implied under the comments I was responding to.

quote:
The CRU did not generate the temperature readings. They were from Weather stations, which have their data available to others, just because the CRU did not make that data available does not mean that it is not available.

True, but weather station data is just one part of it; how that data is interpreted is another part. Regardless, the reviewers found it appropriate to comment on this; it obviously didn't change their overall conclusion, but it was noted, and it was a significant source of criticism of the CRU both before and after the E-mail hack.

quote:
You also made reference to the missing locations to rural Chinese weather station data in the 1990 paper. (I'm quite surprised that you brought up a 1990s paper, as in another post you dismissed a paper because it was 1991,
but I'll play along with your double standards)

Double standard or different intent? I criticized the 1991 study for being outdated not just chronologically, but in terms of data; newer studies give a clearer view of water's behavior instead of just assuming a seasonal change would mirror a nonseasonal change. But "the 1990 paper" is part of a continuous body of evidence that goes back fifty years and leads all the way to now; it is one aspect of a very spotty track record. It has a different place in the debate. That is all.

quote:
Jones asserted that any rise was because of global warming, he didn't account for expanding cities.

The explanation for shifting and shunting of weather station data has been justified as accounting for expanding cities. Unfortunately, far more often than not they will include questionable readings that err on the high side and discard readings that are on the low side. They've biased the results in favor of a predetermined outcome.

quote:
You don't need to be a statistician to preform analysis.

Too true; I can perform statistical analysis, and I'm sure you can too. Regardless, the reviews that are being held so high in esteem for exonerating the CRU's work have regularly observed the unorthodoxy of performing that work without an experienced or specialized statistician.

quote:
the standard method for science is that there is a peer-review of the science before the paper is published and then anyone can critique the science there-after.

It's funny you mention that, considering there has long been the charge (a charge that the E-mail leak doesn't help at all) that established and influential pro-AGW entities regularly tamper with a fair and open peer review process.

quote:
Obviously some one posting in a random tech forum has 0 bearing when compared to someone prominent in the field.

Make no mistake, I expect nothing out of posting online other than a challenge to my own views and opinions.

quote:
The investigation was to inquest the leaked emails, it did have to cover some of the science to clear up some of the allegation.

Exactly; it examined the work only insofar as they were mentioned in the E-mail leaks, and probably only in terms of the most questionable comments out of those E-mails. The reviews clear the CONDUCT of the researchers, not their research. A scientist can act completely honestly and properly and still come to a wrong conclusion, still produce poor work.

quote:
However, when the vast majority of experts, possible over 90% of climatologist, are producing science with seems to state that climate change is a tangible thing.

Now I'm just confused; are we trying to prove that the climate changes, or that man is causing unprecedented climate change? Because if you're talking about the former, then I say, "Duh!" There is absolutely no need to spend another penny on trying to figure out IF the climate changes (HOW it's changing, however, is a more interesting topic of study). The big schism comes over our culpability; a major criticism of climate change research is that they make the leap from "observing a change in climate" straight to "it's because of man". The observation of a change in climate is not the contentious part, it only gets muddy when we tie it to our behavior. That's why such non-scientific metrics and assertions - such as the whole "consensus" hullaballoo, and the Al Gore insistence that "the science is settled" (when it clearly isn't) - have risen to such prominence: Because the actual connection between cause and effect is, at best, tenuous, and inherently difficult to explain fully. "Consensus" is just a dumbing-down of the scientific work for the fairly ignorant masses.

quote:
Apologies if you were just playing devils advocate, I jumped to a conclusion that you were ill informed.

I try not to be ill informed; I'm also hampered by the fact that there are a pile of people on "my side" - arguing against the assertions of AGW - that do so for very stupid reasons (such as those that claim the climate doesn't change at all... ugh). I'm also someone that used to fervently argue in favor of the notion that man is causing significant and global climate change; over time and continued re-examining of the evidence available my attitude shifted.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other news....
By damonlynch on 7/9/2010 3:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that's a good point, thanks for pointing it out. I should have said "naysayers and skeptics" to put more emphasis on the former rather than the latter.


RE: In other news....
By knutjb on 7/9/2010 4:25:37 PM , Rating: 1
What are Mr. Russell's qualifications? Is he a statistician, climate expert, scientist, engineer, researcher? Nope, a government bureaucrat unable to understand the complexities of fudging the numbers in the proper context. Mr. Russell was cherry picked for yet another ensured outcome.

Yeah the inmates are running the asylum. From the same people who brought you the infamous hockey stick, whoops. Yep we were right and still are! Get real. Destroying data, refusing to allow others to critique their findings with their data. Bureaucratic science through consensus, a scientific oxymoron.

An ethics issue with management emails is far different than scientist pushing the limits with data to ensure an outcome. This is a bad joke and these guys must find new careers outside of the climate world. They are damaged goods.


RE: In other news....
By Stacey Melissa on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other news....
By RaisedinUS on 7/9/2010 6:19:44 PM , Rating: 3
He also sat on the board of ScottishPower. What is that? Google it. I think it has something to do with green jobs and technology.


RE: In other news....
By knutjb on 7/11/2010 11:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
Sir Russell has a BSc in Natural Philosophy http://www.universitystory.gla.ac.uk/biography/?id... and management experience. He does not have a scientific research background. This is a science problem not a management one. This needed a serious skeptical scientific researcher with experience in the fields in question like maybe statistics. This is not a philosophical issue of opinions and fleshing out vagaries.

If Sir Russell were investigating East Anglia's management, which should be done, he might be the right person but that's not what he did.


RE: In other news....
By FaceMaster on 7/8/2010 8:51:08 PM , Rating: 1
I agree! These people have found evidence that goes against what we want to believe, therefore it must be FALSE.


RE: In other news....
By Rookierookie on 7/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: In other news....
By mmntech on 7/8/2010 11:46:06 PM , Rating: 5
The ones that blindly follow the "consensus" are just as dumb at the the people who blindly dismiss it.

If it wasn't for people criticizing the science, glaring holes in the theory would never have been pointed out. You can't ignore the fact that the pro-theory side has the most to gain (both financially and gov't power), and the most to loose.


RE: In other news....
By FaceMaster on 7/9/10, Rating: 0
Move Along
By thinkthis on 7/8/2010 7:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Move along Dailytech commenters. This article doesn't comport with your view of global (not) warming so just let your eyes glaze over this one.

I'll wake you up again when something that supports your world view comes along.




RE: Move Along
By AssBall on 7/8/2010 8:48:49 PM , Rating: 1
Stereotype much? Here's one for ya: You're a pointless troll.


RE: Move Along
By thinkthis on 7/9/2010 1:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
Daily tech commenters "by and large" are opposed to the idea of global warming. Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone.

I'm just amused how anytime "science" supports their view these people say "see we were right!" and then when it doesn't everyone just bemoans how corrupt all these scientists are and how the scientists are pushing their agenda even though the scientists *know* they are wrong.


RE: Move Along
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 5:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm just amused how anytime "science" supports their view these people say "see we were right!" and then when it doesn't everyone just bemoans how corrupt all these scientists are and how the scientists are pushing their agenda even though the scientists *know* they are wrong.

Water: What does it do, positive or negative feedback cycle? Until that question (and several others almost as significant) can be answered with rigorous study behind it, the entire scope of AGW research, hypotheses, and assertions are worthless. The impetus is on those claiming man's behavior is having X effect on the globe, and they just plain haven't satisfied that burden of proof.


RE: Move Along
By kyleb2112 on 7/8/2010 9:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you're right. The peer review process was never corrupted, the computer code was never fudged, "hide the decline" was never said.
I'm glad we've got government to refute our own lying eyes.


RE: Move Along
By hr824 on 7/9/2010 1:29:07 AM , Rating: 3
Just so you know "Hide the decline" was referring to tree ring data. From 1880 to 1960 three ring data followed thermometer data, after 1960 the tree ring data showed a cooling no one knows why as of yet so they phased out the tree ring after 1960 to hide the FALSE decline from the tree ring data and used the real thermometer data in it's place.

Of course "hide the decline" was all that your tin foil hat was programmed to let it.


RE: Move Along
By thinkthis on 7/9/2010 1:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
It is called the confirmation bias. We all suffer from it to some extent.


RE: Move Along
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 5:18:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just so you know "Hide the decline" was referring to tree ring data. From 1880 to 1960 three ring data followed thermometer data, after 1960 the tree ring data showed a cooling no one knows why as of yet so they phased out the tree ring after 1960 to hide the FALSE decline from the tree ring data and used the real thermometer data in it's place.

So you agree that the science isn't settled, and as such there couldn't possibly be a scientific consensus?


RE: Move Along
By hr824 on 7/9/2010 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 1
It will never be settled 100% There is however a consensus.
Tree ring data is not the only criteria to determine past global temperatures there are 34 IIRC others and when you average them all the findings are clear weather you like it or not.

Saying that one piece of data in a giant pool of data can't be explained as of yet = non consensus is like saying there is no consensus on gravity because we don't know exactly how it works at the quantum level.



RE: Move Along
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 4:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saying that one piece of data in a giant pool of data can't be explained as of yet = non consensus is like saying there is no consensus on gravity because we don't know exactly how it works at the quantum level.

Yes, exactly. Because there is no consensus on gravity; on of the biggest areas of study right now is trying to figure out a theory that describes gravity's behavior at all scales.

A single piece of data can, indeed, destroy a scientific theory or hypothesis, no matter how much other data supports it. If a theory or hypothesis does not encompass ALL the data, it is a bad or incomplete theory or hypothesis.


RE: Move Along
By hr824 on 7/10/2010 12:27:04 AM , Rating: 1
It is perfectly reasonable to throw out data they know is verifiable wrong IE. Thermometers vs tree rings. Your correct in that a single piece of data can falsify a theory but in this case since they actually have the thermometer data it's a moot point. I'm sure your not implying that tree ring data should be used over thermometers?

If you are really saying that there is no consensus on the theory of gravity you are mistaken or have no clue what a theory is.


RE: Move Along
By SPOOFE on 7/11/2010 8:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but in this case since they actually have the thermometer data it's a moot point. I'm sure your not implying that tree ring data should be used over thermometers?

I'm saying that if the thermometer data says that the tree ring data isn't reliable, why use the tree ring data at all? It's a factor in the equation that inherently needs "fudging", and in that "fudging" is where any bias can be hidden.

quote:
If you are really saying that there is no consensus on the theory of gravity you are mistaken or have no clue what a theory is.

Relativity vs. quantum gravity. Which is right? At all scales, neither. So how is there a consensus?


RE: Move Along
By tmouse on 7/9/2010 7:58:12 AM , Rating: 5
And you feel that it is proper scientific method to select a criteria and then discard it when it disagrees with your hypothesis? I'm sorry your wrong, unfortunately I have seen an increase in this type of behavior and in many circles it is becoming perfectly acceptable. Data is Data you fit the hypothesis to the data you do not drop data to fit the hypothesis. You leave it in and note the discrepancy to do ANYTHING ELSE is to commit a deliberate act of misdirection and to show clear bias in your investigation.


RE: Move Along
By hr824 on 7/9/2010 12:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
There were 2 possibilities the tree ring data was wrong or the thermometers were wrong.


RE: Move Along
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 4:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
Fallacy of the excluded middle. If the climate research were a simple regurgitation of numbers found from measurements, there would be no controversy. The issue is the INTERPRETATION of the measurements; when you can feed random numbers into the equations used to derive the conclusions and achieve the same result, then you can know that the conclusion was reached by the interpretation and not the measurements.


RE: Move Along
By hr824 on 7/10/2010 12:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
I realize that your a collage kid on the debate team (or just your average intertube troll) and nothing will come of this but I have to say that was one of the worst arguments I ever heard and has nothing to do with my OP. There is no conspiracy on this subject, they have actual thermometer data of which there is no interpretation, temperatures are read, documented and displayed on a graph.

Random numbers into equations? what the hell are you talking about? Climate models? and what dose that have to do with my OP?


RE: Move Along
By SPOOFE on 7/11/2010 8:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I realize that your a collage kid on the debate team

I could be a three-year old with Down's syndrome, but that wouldn't alter your inability to grasp my comments or provide adequate retort. :)

quote:
that was one of the worst arguments I ever heard and has nothing to do with my OP.

Other than the whole "your argument is fallacious" part.

quote:
There is no conspiracy on this subject

There need not be.

quote:
they have actual thermometer data of which there is no interpretation

But they interpret it anyway.

quote:
temperatures are read

And they don't say what you seem to think they say.

quote:
documented

Quite poorly, according to Phil "we lost the raw data twenty years ago" Jones.

quote:
displayed on a graph.

Graphs that you can make with random numbers instead of actual tree ring or thermometer data.

quote:
Random numbers into equations? what the hell are you talking about?

Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, one of the central tenants of nigh any AGW hypothesis, and certainly key among data points for IPCC reports.

quote:
Climate models? and what dose that have to do with my OP?

You fallaciously asserted a binary situation where none exists. All the rest of this noise came from your own head.


RE: Move Along
By Aloonatic on 7/9/2010 8:10:52 AM , Rating: 5
The problem is they decided on what is FALSE and what isn't. They decided what measures to use and when one didn't give them the results that they wanted, they decided to throw them out and use something else that did. Then they expect people to say that's OK without asking any questions or finding that sort of behavior suspicious?

They messed up. The sad thing is though, they might well be right, and have done it for the right reasons, but as soon as you start hiding things from people and being less than honest, then you cannot expect to be believe/trusted. What only makes it worse is their supporters going on to call people paranoid and the tinfoil hat wearers etc, which only makes climate change supports and the scientist look like a bunch of conceited know-it-alls, who are even less likely to be believed/trusted in the future, which helps no one.

Until the scientists (and their supporters) are open and honest, and seen to be so, then I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to jump all over this sort of thing, and you will not "convert" anyone. It is not the right way to convince people about what they pompously and arrogantly claim to be a "scientific consensus" in which we should all blindly believe, without asking any questions. Saying to anyone who dares to question them that they are all like Roswell UFO chasing, grass knoll gunmen believing, tin-foil hate wearing, paranoid morons etc.

I can see the frustration on both sides, and the whole issue is a mess frankly.


RE: Move Along
By hr824 on 7/9/2010 12:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hide? how it it hidden? With a few clicks i was able to track the story down and find out exactly what "hide the decline" and "trick" ment is was easy.

All the climate science that points to AGW is at your finger tips you just have to make an effort to look at it.


RE: Move Along
By Etsp on 7/9/2010 1:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
It WAS hidden until the emails were leaked...


RE: Move Along
By Aloonatic on 7/10/2010 5:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
Are you being serious or just joking?


RE: Move Along
By knutjb on 7/9/2010 4:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They messed up. The sad thing is though, they might well be right, and have done it for the right reasons, but as soon as you start hiding things from people and being less than honest, then you cannot expect to be believe/trusted.
Hmmmn...done it for the right reasons... I beg to differ. Doing something for science does not and must never include discarding some data because you think its false. All of the data must be used and suspect data linked with notes as to why you believe its suspect. It falls under being credible.

If you're selectively picking the data so you can do something for the "right reasons" how can you be in anyway impartial and scientific?


RE: Move Along
By Aloonatic on 7/10/2010 5:35:26 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are taking a somewhat high minded/pious approach to this. I would wager, especial when studying very complex systems, that this sort of thing happens all the time and no one moans about it.

Just to clarify, I only said "might", I did not say that they are definitely, 100% right to do it.

The problem for me is not so much that they did it, but that they tried to cover up what they did, rather than explaining why they did it and saying that their conclusions need to have this taken into account.

Both sides need to start acting more responsibly, and frankly more like adults, when discussing this (potentially) incredibly important issue. But whilst they keep on making decisions for people, making ridiculous claims and calling each other names etc, then no one "wins" and the "truth" slips further away.


RE: Move Along
By knutjb on 7/11/2010 1:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
Damned right! The potential economic outcome from following incorrect conclusions from some bozo shaping the data to fit a pre-determined ideology is extremely dangerous.

If you're going to say the world is going to turn into a ball of flames you'd better have incontrovertible evidence with all opposing ideas and data included. They manipulated their data, erased data, did not allow skeptical scientist to review all of the data, etc... This was badly done science with a determined effort to fit the data to an outcome. They didn't even have a statistician ensuring their numbers were correctly processed so they could properly analyze data. Nope, their processes stink on ice.

So with that being said you still want me to accept their conclusions as gospel? Radically change the global economy? Possibly make things worse? If the data proved their theory as fact why be so arrogant, elitist, and so on if you are so right?

No, don't expect me to accept badly done research as OK, too much is riding on it. Time to start over, without these guys.


Consensus has already weighed in.
By joeyjojojrshabadoo on 7/8/2010 10:10:58 PM , Rating: 1
There is an overwhelming consensus amongst radio talk show hosts, bloggers, and other impartial purveyors of purified information that climategate DID INDEED prove that global warming (or, at the very least, AGW) is FALSE. The argument is OVER. I don't know what you "insert derogatory term here" people don't get about that! Bajeez!....wait, what did I just do there?




RE: Consensus has already weighed in.
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 5:29:12 AM , Rating: 3
Climategate eradicated the false consensus and opened the public's eyes to the true messy, fudginess of the nature of climate study. There are no clear-cut explanations; it's no longer as simple as "Duh, mo' CO2 means mo' hot, yo!" There's no more talk of "runaway global warming". There's no more yammering about sea levels rising 20 feet in the next four decades.

There are scores of examinations of climate studies, that have absolutely nothing to do with "Climategate", that do an excellent job addressing the massive holes or cute tricks regularly utilized by the pro-AGW movement. Random numbers produce the hockey stick. Extend timelines back 10,000+ years and recent climate shifts suddenly don't look so remarkable. Weather station shenanigans.

"Climategate" drew so much attention because it confirmed what there was already good reason to suspect. It stood as a clear cut revelation of the people providing this work that the work itself already indicated. They are not altruistic humanitarians looking to save the world; they are flawed people, as we all are, way in over their heads, with a gigantic mountain of pressure to produce "the right results"... studying a subject in which acquiring accurate results are monumentally difficult to achieve to begin with, even without the political pressure.

No, I firmly believe the folks at the CRU are not criminals. I just think they're wrong, and I can point to a number of critical weak points in their work to support my belief.


RE: Consensus has already weighed in.
By HotFoot on 7/9/2010 10:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
The last 10,000 years have been unusually stable and hospitable climate-wise, given a larger view of Earth's history. It is reasoned that this is why agriculture and permanent settlements sprouted all around the globe at the same time because this was only possible starting 10,000 years ago. Before that, humans were better off as hunter/gatherers because crops could not be reliably grown.

Leaving the current state and returning to the more usual, harsh environment would be catastrophic. I hope we never see that happen - whether natural cycle or not.


By SPOOFE on 7/12/2010 12:07:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Leaving the current state and returning to the more usual, harsh environment would be catastrophic.

True. However, if the change is natural, then responding to it as if it were artificial would not alter the change; but it WOULD alter our ability to adapt to the change.

If observed climate changes are natural, the commonly proposed solutions are the WORST thing we can possibly do. Even "nothing" would be a better course of action.


RE: Consensus has already weighed in.
By hr824 on 7/9/2010 12:58:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, I firmly believe the folks at the CRU are not criminals. I just think they're wrong, and I can point to a number of critical weak points in their work to support my belief.


Critical weak points, really, start pointing.


RE: Consensus has already weighed in.
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 4:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
start pointing.

I pointed out three in the post you responded to.


RE: Consensus has already weighed in.
By hr824 on 7/10/2010 1:31:57 AM , Rating: 1
NO you didn't you just spouted your opinions that have no basis and have been refuted over and over.

Climate gate is nothing but fodder for deniers who refuse to look at the actual emails and follow the paper trail and have a high school understanding of how science works.

Random numbers, you have to be kidding climate models are built to follow the data we have if it dose that it a good model and is use to make predictions of the future. They are very aware that future predictions can't and won't be perfect because there is no future data and can only give a range of change based on the best models at the moment and that range is 2 to 6 degrees over the next 100 years and that is dependant on how we control population, CO2, efficiency of energy use, and a range of other variables. 2 degrees is adaptable 6 is catastrophic.

Weather station shanagans? I assume your talking about pooly placed weather stations, well that would be an issue except their looking for changes in tempature over time not actual tempatures. This issue was debunked a long time ago when noaa removed the questionable stations from the data and the graph is exactly the same.


By SPOOFE on 7/11/2010 9:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NO you didn't

"Random numbers produce the hockey stick. Extend timelines back 10,000+ years and recent climate shifts suddenly don't look so remarkable. Weather station shenanigans."

Yes, I did.

quote:
Climate gate is nothing but fodder for deniers

And only dogmatic bigots use a term like "deniers" to describe people looking for an accurate picture of the world.

quote:
Random numbers, you have to be kidding

I wish I were, but it's true: Feed random numbers through the equations Mann used to create the "hockey stick" graph, and you still get the hockey stick.

quote:
is use to make predictions of the future.

I can tell you're getting emotional about this because your grammar is getting worse as things progress. However, make no mistake, the "predictions of the future" have been very poor. By your own metric, we should dismiss prevailing climate models.

quote:
Weather station shanagans? I assume your talking about pooly placed weather stations, well that would be an issue except their looking for changes in tempature over time not actual tempatures.

Yes, they have dismissed actual temperatures in favor of a predetermined "change in temperature over time", and their dismissal of particular weather stations reveals this bias. I'm thrilled that you agree with me on this, but puzzled that you can recognize that their work should be dismissed while seemingly defending their work. I can only assume a significant amount of psychological dissonance on your part.


RE: Consensus has already weighed in.
By Lerianis on 7/9/2010 12:13:21 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. I've looked at the evidence both for and against global warming, and there is MUCH MORE against. The temperatures now being the same as 100 years ago, give or take a degree, in my town, state, and the ENTIRE MIDEAST!

No, global warming is bunk, foisted on people who are too stupid to realize "Hey, climate changes!" and that humans and CO2 have VERY LITTLE EFFECT on that.


RE: Consensus has already weighed in.
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 4:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
Global climate change is real. The climate has been changing since Day One, sometimes drastically. And man may very well be causing it to change in some ways, but we cannot confirm that (or the nature of the change) based on the evidence proposed by AGW advocates.


By knutjb on 7/9/2010 5:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
You stated very the insanity of the GW argument by elitist and the grossly missing open discourse.

Lab discoveries don't always correlate with what happens in nature so they keep changing the name to suit their agenda. Global Freezing, Global Warming, and now Climate Change. They use unfounded fear based outcomes on theories as if fact to perpetuate that agenda and go nuts when new evidence doesn't mesh with that, i.e. the hockey stick.

Those who want control don't care what the science is they only care how they can manipulate it for their own benefit.


Big Oil & Big Coal spin 'climategate'
By bildan on 7/8/2010 8:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Using Big Tobacco as a model, Big Oil & Big Coal, with trillions in revenue to protect, use their massive PR organizations to buy radio talk show hosts and blogsters who deny global warming is happening or, if it is, to claim it isn't their (codeword: "humans") fault.

Conservative religious organizations, who fight science of all kinds, join in.

The success of this propaganda is seen in the number of mindless posts questioning the validity of research or even science itself.

Mind you, Human Resources departments tend to use these posts as evidence of below average intelligence - just like smoking.




RE: Big Oil & Big Coal spin 'climategate'
By Quadrillity on 7/8/2010 9:06:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Using Big Tobacco as a model, Big Oil & Big Coal, with trillions in revenue to protect, use their massive PR organizations to buy radio talk show hosts and blogsters who deny global warming is happening or, if it is, to claim it isn't their (codeword: "humans") fault.

Put on your tinfoil hats kids, bildan is here!
quote:
Conservative religious organizations, who fight science of all kinds, join in.

yeah, because the aforementioned are anti-science ... shut up.
quote:
The success of this propaganda is seen in the number of mindless posts questioning the validity of research or even science itself.

I thought the fundamental principal of science was that it was tested and questioned by many ...?

Get over yourself. I'm going to continue to drive, eat meat, and do whatever else I want to. I am also going to continue in my conservative, reductive, and recycling ways.


By bupkus on 7/9/2010 2:01:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm going to continue to drive, eat meat, and do whatever else I want to
It's a brave new world.


By Shadowmaster625 on 7/9/2010 7:31:18 AM , Rating: 1
Big Oil & Big Coal have no motive to "buy radio talk show hosts and blogsters who deny global warming is happening". They aren't going to lose any money from a carbon tax. They will pass the costs on to the consumer, which in effect grows the size of their industries. There are no viable alternatives. Solar and wind both require massive coal and gas consumption to both manufacture and to maintain those systems.


Masher???
By SteelyKen on 7/8/2010 11:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
What happened to Masher? That guy was super-obsessed with global warming. Haven't seen him in a while and this is something he would never have left without comment.




RE: Masher???
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2010 3:23:07 PM , Rating: 3
Masher was too good for Daily Tech's standards. He did research. He knew how to structure an article. He knew the meaning of editing. He didn't flat out lie or make stuff up like some people around here.

I knew he wouldn't last.


Corilated error terms
By DixyCrat on 7/9/2010 12:07:43 AM , Rating: 2
One of the basic assumptions of correlation is a lack of correlation of the error terms, if there are correlated error terms then it is important to add to your model the unaccounted for factor. This is infinitely more important in stochastic models that lend themselves to researcher-created bias when assumptions are violated.

What is the impact of solar cycles?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07...
"H. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich - The persistent role of the Sun in climate forching"

this doesn't take into account everything of course; there is still about 0.01 Celsius change in the upper atmosphere, every year, that is unaccounted for...

so water-vapor, co2 and methane aren't doing 'nothing' just very little.

ps "hide the effect" is perfectly reasonable in statistics... if you have strong theory to back your behavior... unfortunately for climatologists, this theory should be empirical, and not a priori modern-western-society self-hate.




RE: Corilated error terms
By SPOOFE on 7/9/2010 5:32:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
ps "hide the effect" is perfectly reasonable in statistics...

One of the earlier reviews of the CRU chastised the team for doing work so heavily versed in statistics without a single statistician on the team.

It's clear that the CRU team was not criminal, just inept.


so...
By muhahaaha on 7/8/2010 7:59:01 PM , Rating: 4
So how much funding did this University get from Al Gore and the UK government?




Too late
By JimboK29 on 7/8/2010 10:49:39 PM , Rating: 4
The UK finding was to win the hearts and minds according to a report on the Register.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/muir_russe...

Threatcore also has a link to an MSNBC poll (of all news organizations) letting people vote if they thought the decision was fair.

http://www.threatcore.com

How they can call this stuff science is beyond me. Like they say, the term climate change now has scars. If I recall, one of the groups who dismissed the climate scientists cleared him after a ONE DAY investigation.

It is too late. They were caught now they are in damage control mode and interesting how they do it in the summer months under heat.




LOL
By HakonPCA on 7/8/2010 8:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
lololololololololol

that is all

oh yea

lolololololololol




By AnandTechReader on 7/9/2010 9:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
Weather patterns are cyclical.
Nature is huge, and mankind tiny.

The purpose for the manufactured hysteria over "global climate change" is to confiscate more money for central government.

If you want to believe that humans are changing the climate catastrophically, be my guest.

But if you want to take one penny of my money to pay for a "solution" to the weather, I have another suggestion for how to curb man-made global warming: you should stop emitting CO2 by ceasing to breathe. Then the world will be a better place.




The Science Itself is Bogus
By sleepeeg3 on 7/11/2010 12:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if the global warming alarmists on DailyTech (TK, JM, etc.) have ever actually looked at the science itself? If you look beyond the weak ice core data that only goes back 400k years, which is itself shifted by 800 years and ignores the Maunder Minimum, the data fails to show a strong, direct correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http...

Not only do the averages differ during millions of years of history, but we our CO2 levels are currently about 1/10 of what they were during the Jurassic era, when life thrived! Even IF there is a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature, at our present rate of increase we will be nowhere near the same levels by 2050 when all the global warming doomsayers say "something bad!" is going to happen.

That table comes from NASA's GeoCarb model and other similar models. So how can you look at the data and not believe global warming is anything than a hoax?




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki