07-29-2011, 05:41 PM | #31 |
Drizzt Do'Urden
Join Date: April 9, 2001
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 68
Posts: 630
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Only kidding on that last one.
|
07-29-2011, 05:52 PM | #32 |
Elminster
Join Date: June 20, 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 67
Posts: 486
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
This article isn't proof, one way or t'other, but may be of interest
|
07-29-2011, 07:15 PM | #33 | ||||||
Apophis
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: New York
Age: 37
Posts: 4,666
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology Just read the wiki primer on it. It's really fascinating stuff. Quote:
There are valid criticisms to make about climate science. Nearly all "deniers" are just that, deniers who will never budge from their positions. "Skeptics" are a good thing, skepticisim in science is crucial. Skeptics consider the information given, and give constructive feedback. Skeptics can be reasoned with, and ultimately swayed one way or another. But most skeptics are you know, usually scientists who know what they are talking about. Unlike nearly all deniers. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by SecretMaster; 07-29-2011 at 07:22 PM. |
||||||
07-29-2011, 10:14 PM | #34 | |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: November 15, 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,253
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
Referring to requests for climate data from critics, CRU Director Phil Jones wrote in 2005 that “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” Labour MP Graham Stringer asked Jones why he refused to comply with requests to share data to which Jones answered: “Because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.” Well that's certainly an acceptable reason to not share data. NOT. That's the whole point of peer review - to make your data available to others for systematic scrutiny. Even the House of Commons in their summary agreed with that: 'However, a culture of withholding information””from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming””appears to have pervaded CRU’s approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable.' Almost 80,000 scientists from the Royal Insitute of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics who submitted their own reports to Parliament in which they raised serious concerns over Jones’s and the CRU's conduct. Here is the report from the Institute of Physics of February 2010 http://www.publications.parliament.u...ata/uc3902.htm In particular, note these sections: "The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. " and later: "There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation." The Royal Society of Chemistry's report is here: http://www.publications.parliament.u...ata/uc4202.htm So while the House of Commons might have given him a "get out of jail" free card, the greater scientific community didn't.
__________________
“Every tavern’s an opportunity, I say.” |
|
07-29-2011, 10:45 PM | #35 |
Apophis
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: New York
Age: 37
Posts: 4,666
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Maybe I'm being dense but I think we are saying the same thing. In regards to the tampering and deliberate altering of data, it wasn't demonstrably shown that the CRU actually did that.
The big issue (and maybe I downplayed this with my post) was the really bad handling of data sharing. As the reports seem to say, most individuals weren't happy that the CRU outright refused to share data with anyone. That is a big issue of contention. There were some additional concerns about the statistical rigor of the data, but I think that was something along the lines of using inappropriate analyses. However I don't think actual manipulation of data, as Azred is saying, actually occured. |
07-30-2011, 09:06 AM | #36 |
Xanathar Thieves Guild
Join Date: March 17, 2001
Location: Wichita, KS USA
Age: 61
Posts: 4,537
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
I can sum up everything I believe about climate science in one question:
If they were so convinced they were right, why'd it change from Global Warming to Global Climate Change?
__________________
To those we have lost; May your spirits fly free. Good Music: Here. Interesting read, one of my blogs. |
07-30-2011, 09:41 AM | #37 | |
Jack Burton
Join Date: May 31, 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 5,854
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
Global Warming refers specifically to temperatures rising. Global Climate Change refers to temperature increases AND everything that greenhouse gases affect. It is more general, and as a result is used more often to encompass the many facets of the issue. But both terms are still in use.
__________________
Still I feel like a child when I look at the moon, maybe I grew up a little too soon... |
|
07-30-2011, 09:21 PM | #38 |
Drow Priestess
Join Date: March 13, 2001
Location: a hidden sanctorum high above the metroplex
Age: 54
Posts: 4,037
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
But the generic term "climate change" gives people the ability to claim that anything that happens is proof that they were right, whether all the ice melts or we have a mini ice-age.
I have read some of the articles and studies and they all do the same thing--they begin with the premise that human beings are causing a problem and then show how the data proves their point. The weather will take care of itself; we are not capable of wildly influencing it no matter how much our over-inflated senses of ego tell us otherwise.
__________________
Everything may be explained by a conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories are true. No matter how thinly you slice it, it's still bologna. |
07-30-2011, 10:26 PM | #39 | |
Apophis
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: New York
Age: 37
Posts: 4,666
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
Also I don't think it is hubris to say we are capable of altering the climate on a global scale. Human's have already altered a significant number of systems on this planet already. We've significantly altered the lithosphere, biosphere, arguably the hydrosphere. Humans have completely altered the nitrogen cycle around the world, we're accelerating the extinction of species to historic levels. We've dramatically altered the natural landscapes all over the world, and a lot of natural ecosystem processes have completely changed due to humans. When we inhabit a large chunk of the habitable land on this planet, and people think we aren't capable of altering large scale processes, that is a bad argument. We have already, and climate, which is dependant on so many variables, can also be affected (and data is pointing in the direction that we are doing so). |
|
07-31-2011, 10:16 AM | #40 | |
Xanathar Thieves Guild
Join Date: March 17, 2001
Location: Wichita, KS USA
Age: 61
Posts: 4,537
|
Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
Quote:
What ever happened to the "worst year for hurricanes ever" that we were supposed to have due to "climate change"? I don't recall there being an abnormally large number of hurricanes since Katrina. Did I miss something? We haven't had an abnormal number of tornadoes here, despite claims that we would. However, climate scientists can point at the tornadoes we have had and say "See, we were right.", despite the fact that there have always been tornadoes in KS. I was in at least one hurricane when I lived in Florida, in the 60's. They have generalized their science enough that any severe storm that comes up can support their claims, and frankly, that's not science. What I find ironic is that one can bash the source of the article in the OP as having an agenda, all the while ignoring the agendas of science that supports the belief that mankind is the sole cause of climate change. Who pays those scientists? People like Al Gore? How much money has he made being a doomsayer? The truth is somewhere in the middle of what the extremist on either side would have us believe. We can't help but affect our world, but I sincerely doubt that measuring the length of time it takes a person to blink comparatively is really a good standard to measure climate change against. Afterall, at one time in the not too distant past, the place I live now was an ocean floor. As far as we know, there weren't any people driving around in gas guzzler cars that cause the icecaps to melt, so it must have occured naturally. Let's not forget that at another point in geological history, the ice cap extended to at least as far south as I live, and according to a special I watched on the Discovery or Science Channel, at one time the whole planet was a ball of ice. There weren't any people around to do that either. Conservation is a good thing. Trying to terrify the masses into doing it with poor science is something else entirely.
__________________
To those we have lost; May your spirits fly free. Good Music: Here. Interesting read, one of my blogs. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Talk about global warming, eh? | Link | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 19 | 07-16-2004 12:25 PM |
Global Warming: Who's to blame? | Avatar | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 31 | 09-03-2003 10:50 AM |
News for anyone interested in Global Warming. | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 56 | 09-27-2002 10:17 PM |
Global Warming (time to stir the pot) | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 22 | 05-16-2002 09:28 AM |
Global Warming! Please read and answer | Moridin | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 51 | 04-11-2001 08:01 AM |