Hadley Climate Research Unit hacked. [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

View Full Version : Hadley Climate Research Unit hacked.

Warriorbird

11-20-2009, 05:08 PM

...because the Republicans are lazy lately.

This might be of interest to some folks... what with the politicization of science. A British climate research lab has been hacked and some embarrassing emails (for global warming proponents) released.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

Parkbandit

11-20-2009, 11:27 PM

Wait.. I thought the science was settled!!!

I guess manipulation of data is now considered "science".

In equally related stupidity, this from Al Gore earlier this week:

"It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy -- when they think about it at all -- in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ..."

Stanley Burrell

11-20-2009, 11:31 PM

I don't know who these guys are but when you submit data, you submit all data. Negative data is still data.

Warriorbird

11-21-2009, 01:04 AM

Wait.. I thought the science was settled!!!

I guess manipulation of data is now considered "science".

In equally related stupidity, this from Al Gore earlier this week:

:D

I brought this up before anybody.

I think mankind can have environmental effects but I always said I thought the answer was somewhere in between the 'man does all!' and 'man does nothing!' people. Looks like it's a bit closer to man does nothing. Doesn't mean that's justification to pollute... and does mean that everybody ought to respect the Superfreakonomics proposals more. I was pretty maddened at how jerky the 'global warming is upon us!' people were to Dubner and Levitt. Those guys are some smart folks.

LMingrone

11-21-2009, 01:26 AM

I got the torrent of all the emails and docs. No way I'm going to read through all this though.

I agree with ^. I love how environment peeps act like we're destroying the planet. The planet will be fine. They have no respect for The Earth. I wish they they just said, "We're scared WE ARE going to die!"

Gan

11-21-2009, 01:43 AM

Looks like zero cool has been at it again.

Androidpk

11-21-2009, 02:29 AM

Either way, Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

LMingrone

11-21-2009, 02:44 AM

He was on 30 Rock yesterday. He knows how to pimp it out.

Androidpk

11-21-2009, 03:10 AM

He was on 30 Rock yesterday. He knows how to pimp it out.

I think he's been on more then just one episode too.

Parkbandit

11-21-2009, 08:54 AM

Either way, Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

Yup. And even after this story, people will still believe that man is responsible for Global Warming.. and they would be correct... just not the way they claim man is responsible.

Good for Al though.. he saw some sheep and herded them into a multi-billion dollar industry.

Rocktar

11-21-2009, 09:05 AM

Hey, don't knock ole Algore, he has to earn a living fleecing someone. He IS a lawyer after all.

Bobmuhthol

11-21-2009, 09:06 AM

This is his revenge for people laughing at him over inventing the internet. Who's laughing now, motherfuckers?

Gan

11-21-2009, 07:17 PM

^^/Win

Drinin

11-21-2009, 08:02 PM

Here’s a list of 100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem. (some of my favorites anyway)

2. Incredible shrinking sheep
14. 300,000 deaths a year
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
37. Global cooling (Riiiight)
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
45. Bigger tuna fish (is that even a bad thing?)
49. Earth spinning faster
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
64. Conflict in Darfur
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
72. UFO sightings in the UK
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
86. Lack of monsoons (see 99)
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
94. Heroin addiction
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe

LMingrone

11-21-2009, 08:28 PM

I like the quote from the guy who is at the center of this. Paraphrasing, and I don't know when he said it. "You lose, we win." Hah, we'll see about that now.

phantasm

11-21-2009, 11:14 PM

This is our world now...

Warriorbird

11-22-2009, 12:36 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqXqdPt2nLo

'There are my friends now." is very appropriate here.

4a6c1

11-22-2009, 03:58 PM

Despite the causes - the effect is clear. WE WILL SOON BE UNDER WATER OMG.

Greenland ice loss behind a sixth of sea-level rise
21 November 2009
Magazine issue 2735. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

GREENLAND lost 1500 cubic kilometres of ice between 2000 and 2008, making it responsible for one-sixth of global sea-level rise. Even worse, there are signs that the rate of ice loss is increasing.

Michiel van den Broeke of Utrecht University in the Netherlands and colleagues began by modelling the difference in annual snowfall and snowmelt in Greenland between 2003 and 2008 to reveal the net ice loss for each year. They then compared each year's loss with that calculated from readings by the GRACE satellite, which "weighs" the ice sheet by measuring its gravity.

The team found that results from the two methods roughly matched and showed that Greenland is losing enough ice to contribute on average 0.46 millimetres per year to global sea-level rise. The loss may be accelerating: since 2006, warm summers have caused levels to rise by 0.75 millimetres per year, though van den Broeke says we can't be sure whether this trend will continue (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1178176). Sea levels are rising globally by 3 millimetres on average.

Half the ice was lost through melting and half through glaciers sliding faster into the oceans, the team says. "The study gives us a really good handle on how to approximate how much ice Greenland is going to lose in the coming century," says Ted Scambos of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427354.100-greenland-ice-loss-behind-a-sixth-of-sealevel-rise.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Gelston

11-22-2009, 04:22 PM

Parkbandit

11-23-2009, 11:15 AM

The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade, a United Nations official said.

Suneeta Mukherjee, country representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA), said women in the Philippines are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the country.

“Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection," Mukherjee said during the Wednesday launch of the UNFPA annual State of World Population Report in Pasay City.

In the Philippines, small brothels usually pop up near the coastal areas where many women perform sexual services for transient seafarers. Often, these prostitutes are ferried to bigger ships by their pimps.

Based on the UNFPA report, there are 92 million Filipinos in the country as of 2009 and that number is expected to balloon to more than 146 million in the next 40 years.

Of the 92 million Filipinos, about 60 percent are living in coastal areas and depend on the seas for livelihood, said former Environment secretary Dr. Angel Alcala.

Alcala said that “we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our marine environment."

But as the sea’s resources are depleted due to overpopulation and overfishing, fishermen start losing their livelihood and women are forced to share the traditional role of the man in providing for the family.

Alacala, who also heads the Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management in Siliman University, said some women often pick out shellfish by the coastlines, which exposed to storm surges.

Women who can no longer endure this work often go out to find other jobs, while some are tempted to go into prostitution, Alcala added.

In an interview with the Inter Press News Agency, Marita Rodriguez of the Centre for Empowerment and Resource Development, Inc. said women are taking the brunt of climate change.

"Aside from their household chores and participation in fishing activity, they have to find additional sources of income like working as domestic helpers in affluent families," she said.

The UNFPA noted that the temperature in the earth’s surface has risen 0.74 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. The 10 warmest years globally since 1880 have also been recorded in the last 13 years.

“Slower population growth, for example, would help build social resilience to climate change’s impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas-emissions in the future," the UNFPA report said.

The UNFPA suggested five measures to mitigate climate change and overpopulation:
•Bring a better understanding of population dynamics, gender and reproductive health to climate change and environmental discussions at all levels;

•Fully fund family planning services and contraceptive supplies within the framework of reproductive health and rights, and assure that low income is no barrier to access;

•Prioritize research and date collection to improve the understanding of gender and population dynamics in climate change mitigation and adaptation;

•Improve sex-disaggregation of date related to migration flows that are influenced by environmental factors and prepare now for increases in population movements resulting from climate change; and

•Integrate gender considerations into global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work

GLOBAL WARMING IS PIMP!

Parkbandit

11-27-2009, 08:57 AM

The climatologists at the center of last week's leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science, which is as certain as ever.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" does not "read well," it's true. (Mr. Mann has said he didn't delete any such emails.)

But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.

This past September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who fact-checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds—including some in Mr. Mann's work—on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more-famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature," by the way, are Mr. Mann's. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, re-define what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science.

The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature.

Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there's an innocent explanation for that, we'd love to hear it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Gan

11-27-2009, 09:51 AM

Parkbandit

12-02-2009, 10:30 AM

THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over *billions of years.

Prof Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place

The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.

Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.

“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”

He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.

And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.

Climate change is widely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere, where they trap the sun’s heat.

The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”

The CRU’s Professor Jones has admitted some of the emails may have had “poorly chosen words” and were sent in the “heat of the moment”. But he has categorically denied manipulating data and said he stood by the science. And yesterday he dismissed suggestions of a conspiracy to alter *evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming as “complete rubbish”.

But mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby.

He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.

“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”

But Vicky Pope, head of Met Office Climate Change Advice, said: “We are seeing changes in climate on a timescale we have not seen before.

“There clearly are natural variations. But the only way we can explain these trends is when we include both man-made and natural changes to the climate.

“We have also seen declines in summer sea ice over the past 30 years, glaciers retreating for 150 years, changing rainfall patterns and increases in subsurface and surface ocean temperatures.”

And as the war of words between the rival camps intensified, leading economist Lord Stern dismissed the sceptics as “muddled”.

Lord Stern, who produced a detailed report on the issue for the Government, said evidence of *climate change was “overwhelming”. He accepted that all views should be heard but said the degree of *scepticism among “real scientists” was very small.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

Global warming is almost like a religion.. where believing the theory takes a huge leap of faith and a complete dismissal of historical evidence.

Paradii

12-02-2009, 11:13 AM

“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”

Global warming is almost like a religion.. where believing the theory takes a huge leap of faith and a complete dismissal of historical evidence.

I am going to disagree with that first quote. The average person does not have common sense. Anyone that has been to the mall, driven a car, or waited in line anywhere will vouch for that.

As for the second part, it should have been omitted in the article. GCC is a hot subject right now, and for every scientist you find that is strongly opposed to it with decent data to back them up, you will find a scientist strongly for it with decent data to back them up.

Just because one group on the latter side, albeit a pretty well known one, is under fire for supposedly altering data, it doesn't change the fact that there is some accurate data supporting GCC.

Parkbandit

12-02-2009, 11:26 AM

I am going to disagree with that first quote. The average person does not have common sense. Anyone that has been to the mall, driven a car, or waited in line anywhere will vouch for that.

I disagree. You might find an occasional idiot who seems to have no common sense, but the average person does. The idiots tend to stick out, while the normal people blend into the backround.

As for the second part, it should have been omitted in the article. GCC is a hot subject right now, and for every scientist you find that is strongly opposed to it with decent data to back them up, you will find a scientist strongly for it with decent data to back them up.

Feel free to illustrate the "decent data" to back up global warming. Please don't use any data that was manipulated by the HCRU though... since that has obviously been cooked.

Just because one group on the latter side, albeit a pretty well known one, is under fire for supposedly altering data, it doesn't change the fact that there is some accurate data supporting GCC.

I eagerly await you to share such data.

Warriorbird

12-02-2009, 11:37 AM

Mind you... the Plimer thing is more of a 'scandal' because he was allowed to speak. His views aren't news. The fellow is on the board of directors for three mining companies. He also has a book coming out. He'd love to make a bunch of money off Republicans.

Cephalopod

12-02-2009, 11:41 AM

Global warming is almost like a religion.. where believing the theory takes a huge leap of faith and a complete dismissal of historical evidence.

Except Plimer is not 'a leading academic' in climatology (http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-sceptics-shadow-of-doubt-20090501-aqa1.html?page=-1). He's a respected geologist, but his book on climate skepticism has been roundly discounted as the same 'hot air' he's claiming is being used (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php), and he's been caught lying (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php) about his source material.

Let's go ahead and ask an aerospace engineer to give us some theory on particle physics, but ignore the fact that he's previously lied about his source materials on particle physics.

Climate change denial is very much like a religion. Believing in crackpot skepticism takes a huge leap of ignorance and dismissal of actual scientific data.

Ravenstorm

12-02-2009, 12:09 PM

What a load of crap. So 3 or 4 scientists played with some data to make it look 'better' (as opposed to making up data which even the deniers haven't claimed). 2500+ others have not. But it's also irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what's causing the climate change. The fact is, the climate is changing. The world is warming. The ten hottest years since we've been keeping track have occurred since 1997. Global ice is disappearing at an alarming rate. And it doesn't matter why. Going out in the cold won't make you sick but if you're already sick, going out in the cold can make it worse. And pumping lots of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere when the climate is warming whether it's a natural cycle or not is just stupid.

This isn't about saving the planet. The planet will be here long after humans are dead. This is about saving humans. The US has lots of low lying coastlines that will be underwater. Some countries will be gone or nearly gone like Bangladesh. And while most people probably don't give a shit about them, those refugees will be going somewhere.

Me? I'll be dead before it's a major problem and I've never wanted children. But if you like your kids, you better worry about their future.

Parkbandit

12-02-2009, 12:38 PM

Except Plimer is not 'a leading academic' in climatology (http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-sceptics-shadow-of-doubt-20090501-aqa1.html?page=-1). He's a respected geologist, but his book on climate skepticism has been roundly discounted as the same 'hot air' he's claiming is being used (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php), and he's been caught lying (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php) about his source material.

So he is a respected geologist. How does one determine the climate in the past, before records were kept? I'll take a guess: Maybe a geologist?

Making him an expert on past climate and conditions the planet was in.

Let's go ahead and ask an aerospace engineer to give us some theory on particle physics, but ignore the fact that he's previously lied about his source materials on particle physics.

So if someone lied about something ever, he can never be trusted again?

Climate change denial is very much like a religion. Believing in crackpot skepticism takes a huge leap of ignorance and dismissal of actual scientific data.

I see it completely different. If I were to believe that man's output of 2% of CO2 compared to 98% of natural occurances is the cause of global warming (oh wait.. since it's been cooling over the last decade, we should call it CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!1111oneone) I would have to completely disregard the accepted truths of Earth's past. I would have to believe that the Ice Age is completely made up. I would have to discount the sun having any part of the heating or cooling of this planet. I would have to disregard any notion of our atmosphere being comprised of 1000 times the amount of CO2 as there is today, in the past.

I basically have to stop watching the History Channel whenever there is such blastphomy on like "How the Earth Was Made" or "The Universe".

Parkbandit

12-02-2009, 12:51 PM

What a load of crap. So 3 or 4 scientists played with some data to make it look 'better' (as opposed to making up data which even the deniers haven't claimed). 2500+ others have not. But it's also irrelevant.

They played with the data to hide trends that the entire Global Warming Crisis is based upon.

It doesn't matter what's causing the climate change. The fact is, the climate is changing. The world is warming. The ten hottest years since we've been keeping track have occurred since 1997.

So you are basing a 4.5 billion year old planet's "health" on 100 years of questionable data? Awesome. If Global Warming were real.. what happened to the past 10 years since it's been cooling?

Global ice is disappearing at an alarming rate.

Something that has happened on this planet repeatedly for over 3 billion years.

And it doesn't matter why.

It doesn't matter why? If man isn't the cause, then why are we going to spend trillions of dollars on it?

Going out in the cold won't make you sick but if you're already sick, going out in the cold can make it worse.

Horseshit.

And pumping lots of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere when the climate is warming whether it's a natural cycle or not is just stupid.

We should spend more money on trying to figure out how to stop Mother Earth from polluting herself, since she accounts for 98% of CO2 emissions.

This isn't about saving the planet.

The only thing you posted that actually makes sense. This has nothing to do with the planet and everything to do with the political machine behind it. Power and money.. pretty easy to figure out.

The planet will be here long after humans are dead.

Actually, you have no factual basis for making this assumption. The Sun could go supernova tomorrow, killing the planet and everything on it.

This is about saving humans.

Saving humans? :rofl: It is about power and money... nothing more.

The US has lots of low lying coastlines that will be underwater. Some countries will be gone or nearly gone like Bangladesh. And while most people probably don't give a shit about them, those refugees will be going somewhere.

You could fit the entire population of the planet in a space slightly larger than Rhode Island. I think we have room.

Me? I'll be dead before it's a major problem and I've never wanted children. But if you like your kids, you better worry about their future.

That is one thing I find solace in.. your seed will die with you. And I do worry about my kid's future.. not by Global Warming (oops.. Climate Change!), but by spending trillions and trillions of dollars to the point where the US can not sustain itself. USSR II?

Cephalopod

12-02-2009, 01:14 PM

So he is a respected geologist. How does one determine the climate in the past, before records were kept? I'll take a guess: Maybe a geologist?

Making him an expert on past climate and conditions the planet was in.

On geologic scales, which are (while not totally irrelevant) not authoritative on non-geologic timescale events.

So if someone lied about something ever, he can never be trusted again?

Isn't this what climate change skeptics are saying about 'ClimateGate'? If they have emails that say they might have changed data, nothing even tangently connected to them can be trusted!

The point here is that Plimer lied about a source for a critical piece of data that was one of the underpinings of his entire work. He also mis-interpreted data that was crucial to his hypothesis. This makes his statements relative to climate change very suspect, in the same way that people are doubting the HCR data.

However, when you look at the data the HCR may have manipulated, though, it is in no way incongruous with the larger sets of climate data.

I see it completely different. If I were to believe that man's output of 2% of CO2 compared to 98% of natural occurances is the cause of global warming (oh wait.. since it's been cooling over the last decade, we should call it CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!1111oneone) I would have to completely disregard the accepted truths of Earth's past. I would have to believe that the Ice Age is completely made up. I would have to discount the sun having any part of the heating or cooling of this planet. I would have to disregard any notion of our atmosphere being comprised of 1000 times the amount of CO2 as there is today, in the past.

I basically have to stop watching the History Channel whenever there is such blastphomy on like "How the Earth Was Made" or "The Universe".

I don't even know how to respond to this. You're basically taking a step back, looking at a wavelength model of climate change over the Earth's history, and saying: "Look, the pattern isn't that deviant from normal shifts!" You need to look at much more discrete blocks of time to get a picture of how our actions on Earth have caused accelerated climate changes that are detrimental to our long-term survival. Looking at ONLY the long-view, you get a very incomplete picture. Despite the fact that the Earth has a) been warmer in the past and b) been cooler in the past, there's more to it than saying "We aren't outside these ranges, everything must be okay, and you guys are all smoking crack!"

Parkbandit

12-02-2009, 01:28 PM

On geologic scales, which are (while not totally irrelevant) not authoritative on non-geologic timescale events.

How are we able to determine what was happening on our planet in the past millions of years, if not by a Geologist?

Isn't this what climate change skeptics are saying about 'ClimateGate'? If they have emails that say they might have changed data, nothing even tangently connected to them can be trusted!

No. The difference is.. I wouldn't trust Plimer on the item he lied about (just taking your word for it, since I haven't read your link yet) anymore than I would trust HCRU on the climate data they cooked. YOU are the one that is inferring that you wouldn't trust Plimer for anything else ever, but you are ok to trust the HCRU, even with the data they fudged.

The point here is that Plimer lied about a source for a critical piece of data that was one of the underpinings of his entire work. He also mis-interpreted data that was crucial to his hypothesis. This makes his statements relative to climate change very suspect, in the same way that people are doubting the HCR data.

However, when you look at the data the HCR may have manipulated, though, it is in no way incongruous with the larger sets of climate data.

See above.

I don't even know how to respond to this. You're basically taking a step back, looking at a wavelength model of climate change over the Earth's history, and saying: "Look, the pattern isn't that deviant from normal shifts!" You need to look at much more discrete blocks of time to get a picture of how our actions on Earth have caused accelerated climate changes that are detrimental to our long-term survival. Looking at ONLY the long-view, you get a very incomplete picture. Despite the fact that the Earth has a) been warmer in the past and b) been cooler in the past, there's more to it than saying "We aren't outside these ranges, everything must be okay, and you guys are all smoking crack!"

And yet you are dismissing the entire history of the 4.5 billion year old planet and just taking the smallest fraction of time to base a questionable theory upon. A fraction of time that just happens to begin with the "Little Ice Age" to "prove" that the Earth is warming.

Cephalopod

12-02-2009, 02:02 PM

but you are ok to trust the HCRU, even with the data they fudged.

Have you seen the raw data vs. what was presented by the HCRU? Can you point to the 'fudging'? I haven't seen the raw data (thanks to FOIA failures), but I know what the HCRU presented and what transformations they used to present it. The 'trick' that is referred to in the emails is actually based on a paper from 1998, showing how to plot recent instrumental datasets along with reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. (source: Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S. & Hughes, M. K. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392, 779–787 (1998).) Take a look, and let me know if you still think the data are fudged, or if they're just applying documented, peer-reviewed data transformations. This is a far cry from Plimer's usage of data, which is flat-out misinterpretation and lying about sources.

And yet you are dismissing the entire history of the 4.5 billion year old planet and just taking the smallest fraction of time to base a questionable theory upon. A fraction of time that just happens to begin with the "Little Ice Age" to "prove" that the Earth is warming.

I'm not sure where I indicated that I was ignoring long-timescale data, but here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)'s a short article that shows how looking at longer-timespan climate shifts actually backs up the more recent climate change data.

If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite to what peer reviewed science has found.

Parkbandit

12-02-2009, 02:28 PM

Have you seen the raw data vs. what was presented by the HCRU? Can you point to the 'fudging'? I haven't seen the raw data (thanks to FOIA failures), but I know what the HCRU presented and what transformations they used to present it. The 'trick' that is referred to in the emails is actually based on a paper from 1998, showing how to plot recent instrumental datasets along with reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. (source: Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S. & Hughes, M. K. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392, 779–787 (1998).) Take a look, and let me know if you still think the data are fudged, or if they're just applying documented, peer-reviewed data transformations. This is a far cry from Plimer's usage of data, which is flat-out misinterpretation and lying about sources.

Much of the raw data was conveniently tossed out (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece), so I'm not surprised you haven't seen it. Neither has many other people who have been asking that it be released to the public.

I'm not sure where I indicated that I was ignoring long-timescale data, but here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)'s a short article that shows how looking at longer-timespan climate shifts actually backs up the more recent climate change data.

Are you seriously linking to a site who's stated title is "Examining the science of global warming skepticism"?

I didn't know we could go that route.. allow me:

http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html

Here's 383 different articles, sites and scientific data refuting global warming is man's fault. Enjoy.

Sean of the Thread

12-02-2009, 02:41 PM

Todd is a whiny midget but that's a good link/compilation.

Cephalopod

12-02-2009, 02:51 PM

Much of the raw data was conveniently tossed out (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece), so I'm not surprised you haven't seen it. Neither has many other people who have been asking that it be released to the public.

An example of misrepresenting information: HCRU does not keep the raw data, but the raw data still exist -- it's just held privately. HCRU is legally bound to not reveal the raw data and have no reason to keep it, which is why FOIA requests have failed. It's disappointing, but you'd have to take it up with the countries that provided the original data, and who made the stipulation.

Are you seriously linking to a site who's stated title is "Examining the science of global warming skepticism"?

I didn't know we could go that route.. allow me:

http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html

Here's 383 different articles, sites and scientific data refuting global warming is man's fault. Enjoy.

Except my link is one article, with citations for every piece of data listed. I don't mind going to a site called 'WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS WRONG: 80000 REASONS" if all data are properly attributed and cited. Please choose one article of those 383, and I'll be happy to review it. I tried finding one that cited data at all, and wound up with references to Richard Lindzen's work. Lindzen is a climatologist at MIT who does stand against mainstream belief in climate change. The problem is that Lindzen doesn't even believe in his own work, and has been proven wrong on many occasions. Add to this that none of his statements AGAINST anthropogenic climate change have ever been published in a peer-review journal, and he's a fishy source.

Having said that, I'm happily wasting some time today reading through a lot of those links, because I'm a nerd and that's what I do when I'm bored. Most of them are easy to dismiss because they have no facts, and are purely speculation and opinion pieces. I'll be glad to embarace any verifiable information I see, though.

EDIT to add: A lot of these are pre-occupied with character attacks on Al Gore. I've never seen 'An Inconvienent Truth' (or read the companion book), so I can't really speak to the science presented in them, but I do like that a lot of these links can be easily dismissed as ad hominem attacks.

Drew

12-02-2009, 03:13 PM

Add to this that none of his statements AGAINST anthropogenic climate change have ever been published in a peer-review journal, and he's a fishy source.

You can see the irony in that a lot of these emails discussed how to prevent scientists who didn't believe in AGW from getting into peer reviewed journals?

Parkbandit

12-02-2009, 05:44 PM

Todd is a whiny midget but that's a good link/compilation.

Yea.. I can't stand the guy to be honest.. I've met him in real life and he has some serious Napoleon issues.

Parkbandit

12-02-2009, 06:00 PM

Hey Nacho.. do you remember the same thing in the 70's.. called Global Cooling? The "accepted" "science" back then was that man is cooling the entire planet via aerosol cans and that we had to ban them to save humanity!!!

http://leatherhead.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/global-cooling-time.gif

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/global-cooling.jpg

When that didn't pan out (because the natural cooling trend reversed itself), the loons went on to acid rain will destroy humanity and the planet!!! Then Global Warming really started cooking.. until it started cooling again.. and now that it's not really warming, it's all bound up into a nice, neat little package called "Climate Change".

You will excuse me if I don't want to join your Church.

Cephalopod

12-02-2009, 09:17 PM

You can see the irony in that a lot of these emails discussed how to prevent scientists who didn't believe in AGW from getting into peer reviewed journals?

Doesn't seem ironic at all. Most scientists don't want garbage to be submitted to peer review journals, clogging up otherwise useful journals.

One of the specific scientists referenced in the email (as someone who's submission they were determined to block) was editor of a series of papers that were such bad science and blatantly wrong (including a paper by Ross McKitrick where EVERY single calculation was wrong!), half of the editors of the publication (Climate Research) resigned in protest of his continued presence.

The email trails don't show them desiring suppression of climate skeptics purely based on their skepticism -- they reference 'blatantly bad science'. And these are in what they Hadley scientists assumed were private emails, so this seems especially tame to me, considering what I know I'd write about people consciously submitting blatantly wrong work in my industry to my coworkers and peers.

Keep in mind that they are wistfully wishing for the ability to suppress them, but don't actually have that power (and they know it) nor is there any indication they attempted to wield it other than through disproving garbage claims.

Cephalopod

12-02-2009, 09:21 PM

Hey Nacho.. do you remember the same thing in the 70's.. called Global Cooling? The "accepted" "science" back then was that man is cooling the entire planet via aerosol cans and that we had to ban them to save humanity!!!

...

When that didn't pan out (because the natural cooling trend reversed itself), the loons went on to acid rain will destroy humanity and the planet!!! Then Global Warming really started cooking.. until it started cooling again.. and now that it's not really warming, it's all bound up into a nice, neat little package called "Climate Change".

You will excuse me if I don't want to join your Church.

You realize, of course, that the 'global cooling' movement didn't actually have much scientific support at the time, and it was mostly pushed by the media?

Gan

12-02-2009, 10:47 PM

You realize, of course, that the 'global cooling' movement didn't actually have much scientific support at the time, and it was mostly pushed by the media?

You might want to reconsider this statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I also remember it being shoved down my throat at school. Then it simply disappeared from the curriculum one year, and low and behold people still survived.

I think the leaked emails call into question all the data. Unfortunately most of the raw data collected (since the 80's) has been dumped for storage purposes. Only the data that had been 'refined' was kept. Without the raw data (WHERE THE FUCK IS LATRIN TO DISCUSS THE MISSING DATA MAN! OH GOD THE MISSING DATA!) how can an objective viewpoint be formed by those not associated with this scandal?

Its turned the climate science community into a huge farce in my opinion.

Cephalopod

12-02-2009, 10:58 PM

You might want to reconsider this statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I'm not sure what you mean. First paragraph:

This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.

That seems to repeat exactly what I said.

I think the leaked emails call into question all the data. Unfortunately most of the raw data collected (since the 80's) has been dumped for storage purposes.

What raw data are missing? Per my previous statements, ALL of the data are still available, but Hadley cannot provide it. The data were obtained with a legal agreement that they could NOT publicize the raw data. It is still available from the original sources, but not likely to be made public. That IS a shame, but you need to blame the providing countries for the withholdings.

Further, we have the source for the data transformations available (from the HCRU leak), so we know what was done to 'cook' the data. They applied standard, previously documented adjustments.

Gan

12-02-2009, 11:08 PM

What raw data are missing? Per my previous statements, ALL of the data are still available, but Hadley cannot provide it. The data were obtained with a legal agreement that they could NOT publicize the raw data. It is still available from the original sources, but not likely to be made public. That IS a shame, but you need to blame the providing countries for the withholdings.

Further, we have the source for the data transformations available (from the HCRU leak), so we know what was done to 'cook' the data. They applied standard, previously documented adjustments.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Gan

12-02-2009, 11:09 PM

OOPS?

Paradii

12-02-2009, 11:48 PM

Its turned the climate science community into a huge farce in my opinion.

One lab with a group of scientists turned a field of probably around 10,000 researchers into a huge farce eh.

Cephalopod

12-03-2009, 12:14 AM

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

This is the same article PB linked earlier in this thread, to which I responded:

An example of misrepresenting information: HCRU does not keep the raw data, but the raw data still exist -- it's just held privately. HCRU is legally bound to not reveal the raw data and have no reason to keep it, which is why FOIA requests have failed. It's disappointing, but you'd have to take it up with the countries that provided the original data, and who made the stipulation.

Further, some of the specific data they are being accused of 'deleting' are even still publicly available:

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

"When you're looking at climate data, you don't want stations that are showing urban warming trends," Jones said, "so we've taken them out." Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. "We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world."

Refuting CEI's claims of data-destruction, Jones said, "We haven't destroyed anything. The data is still there -- you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU, including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said.

http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3

Of course, Jones has 'temporarily' stepped down (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_dt9Bjj5yVV7k1PAyDnVHKvKtgAD9CAOU800) now...

EDIT: The data I referenced as being 'private' are what you see referred to as HCRU refusing to turn over data in FOIA requests, where they have a legal binder preventing them from releasing. This is different from what's being claimed was 'deleted' by TimesOnline.co.uk and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which are the data that are publicly available for anyone to get in raw format and inspect themselves. Two separate accusations against the HCRU, both equally inane.

Gan

12-03-2009, 06:39 AM

So we should be expecting a retraction from The Times anyday now then.

Right?

Gan

12-03-2009, 06:49 AM

In honor of this thread, I farted outside when I let the dog out this morning.

Parkbandit

12-03-2009, 08:52 AM

In honor of this thread, I farted outside when I let the dog out this morning.

I think Ravenstorm said it best...

But if you like your kids, you better worry about their future.

Which leads me to question your love for your children.

Cephalopod

12-03-2009, 09:45 AM

In honor of this thread, I farted outside when I let the dog out this morning.

Al Gore will be coming to your house to charge you $2m for your emissions. Kindly pay in full.

Cephalopod

12-03-2009, 09:48 AM

So we should be expecting a retraction from The Times anyday now then.

Right?

Right, because every media outlet (especially one as trustworthy as Rupert Murdoch's) is known to retract and correct all poor reporting they do, especially while they're still milking the story.

I eagerly look forward to the day any newspaper or media outlet consistently owns up to its failures. This goes for left-, right-, center- and dennis-leaning groups alike.

Warriorbird

12-03-2009, 10:52 AM

Right, because every media outlet (especially one as trustworthy as Rupert Murdoch's) is known to retract and correct all poor reporting they do, especially while they're still milking the story.

I eagerly look forward to the day any newspaper or media outlet consistently owns up to its failures. This goes for left-, right-, center- and dennis-leaning groups alike.

To their credit Fox did admit to using Palin crowd videos to make the 'Tea Parties' look bigger. They said it was a 'mistake' though.

Cephalopod

12-05-2009, 11:34 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

I like the term "febrile nitwits".

Clove

12-06-2009, 10:51 AM

Wow? Several million? He's only off 3 orders of magnitude.

Gan

12-06-2009, 11:19 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=related

I like the term "deeply disturbing".

EasternBrand

12-06-2009, 11:32 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=related

I like the term "deeply disturbing".

You mean how he's deeply disturbed about ad hominem attacks on individual people via confidential emails? Worse things are said on the PC, and this is a public forum.

I like the term "decide whether or not you're going to wear your shirt collar inside or outside your sweater." I'll wait. Oh, okay, inside. Fine choice.

Gan

12-06-2009, 12:02 PM

deeply disturbing indeed

Cephalopod

12-06-2009, 03:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=related

I like the term "deeply disturbing".

Since when is a retired geography professor referred to as a 'retired climatologist'? (omg, more ad hominem! Oh, wait, except his lack of credentials makes him singularly unfit for this sort of discussion. Nevermind.)

I like his assertion that HCR 'controls' the global temperature data, when less than 5% of that data referenced are actually generated by HCR, and that 5% has a lot of overlapping data collected separately by other groups.

It saddens me how similar Evolution-deniers and Climate-change-deniers are. At least, though, young-earth creationists can't stand on the site of climate skeptics who say "The earth has been doing this for millions of years!"

Gan

12-06-2009, 04:43 PM

Since when is a retired geography professor referred to as a 'retired climatologist'? (omg, more ad hominem! Oh, wait, except his lack of credentials makes him singularly unfit for this sort of discussion. Nevermind.)
So the study of Geography has nothing whatsoever to do with weather on Earth? Really?

Geography (from Greek (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Greek_language) γεωγραφία - geographia, lit. "earth describe-write"[1] (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#cite_note-0)) is the study of the Earth (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Earth) and its lands, features, inhabitants, and phenomena.[2] (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#cite_note-1) A literal translation would be "to describe or write about the Earth". The first person to use the word "geography" was Eratosthenes (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Eratosthenes) (276-194 B.C.). Four historical traditions in geographical research are the spatial analysis (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Spatial_analysis) of natural and human phenomena (geography as a study of distribution), area studies (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Area_studies) (places and regions), study of man-land relationship, and research in earth sciences (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Earth_science).[3] (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#cite_note-2) Nonetheless, modern geography is an all-encompassing discipline that foremost seeks to understand the Earth and all of its human and natural complexities—not merely where objects are, but how they have changed and come to be. As "the bridge between the human and physical sciences (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Physical_science)," geography is divided into two main branches—human geography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Human_geography) and physical geography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Physical_geography).[4] (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#cite_note-3)[5] (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#cite_note-4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography

Physical geography (also known as geosystems or physiography) is one of the two major subfields of geography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geography)[1] (http://forum.gsplayers.com/#cite_note-0), as opposed to the cultural or built environment (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Built_environment), the domain of human geography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Human_geography). Within the body of physical geography, the Earth (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Earth) is often split either into several spheres (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Earth%27s_spheres) or environments, the main spheres being the atmosphere (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere), biosphere (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Biosphere), cryosphere (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Cryosphere), geosphere (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geosphere), hydrosphere (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Hydrosphere), lithosphere (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Lithosphere) and pedosphere (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Pedosphere). Research in physical geography is often interdisciplinary and uses the systems approach (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Systems_approach).
Physical geography is that branch of science which deals with the study of processes and patterns in the natural environment like atmosphere, biosphere and geosphere.
Fields of physical geography

Geomorphology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geomorphology) is the science concerned with understanding the surface (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Lithosphere) of the Earth and the processes by which it is shaped, both at the present as well as in the past. Geomorphology as a field has several sub-fields that deal with the specific landforms of various environments e.g. desert (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Desert) geomorphology and fluvial (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Fluvial) geomorphology, however, these sub-fields are united by the core processes which cause them; mainly tectonic or climatic processes. Geomorphology seeks to understand landform (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Landform) history and dynamics, and predict future changes through a combination of field observation, physical experiment, and numerical modeling. (Geomorphometry (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geomorphometry)). Early studies in geomorphology are the foundation for pedology, one of two main branches of soil science (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Soil_science).
Hydrology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Hydrology) is predominantly concerned with the amounts and quality of water moving and accumulating on the land surface and in the soils and rocks near the surface and is typified by the hydrological cycle (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Hydrological_cycle). Thus the field encompasses water in rivers (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Rivers), lakes (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Lakes), aquifers (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Aquifers) and to an extent glaciers (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Glaciers), in which the field examines the process and dynamics involved in these bodies of water. Hydrology has historically had an important connection with engineering (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Engineering) and has thus developed a largely quantitative method in its research; however, it does have an earth science (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Earth_science) side that embraces the systems approach. Similar to most fields of physical geography it has sub-fields that examine the specific bodies of water or their interaction with other spheres e.g. limnology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Limnology) and ecohydrology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Ecohydrology).
Glaciology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Glaciology) is the study of glaciers (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Glaciers) and ice sheets (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Ice_sheets), or more commonly the cryosphere (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Cryosphere) or ice (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Ice) and phenomena that involve ice. Glaciology groups the latter (ice sheets) as continental glaciers and the former (glaciers) as alpine glaciers. Although, research in the areas are similar with research undertaken into both the dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers the latter tends to be concerned with the interaction of ice sheets with the present climate and the latter with the impact of glaciers on the landscape. Glaciology also has a vast array of sub-fields examining the factors and processes involved in ice sheets and glaciers e.g. snow (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Snow) hydrology and glacial geology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Glacial_geology).
Biogeography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Biogeography) is the science which deals with geographic patterns of species distribution and the processes that result in these patterns. Biogeography emerged as a field of study as a result of the work of Alfred Russel Wallace (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace), although the field prior to the late twentieth century had largely been viewed as historic in its outlook and descriptive in its approach. The main stimulus for the field since its founding has been that of evolution (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Evolution), plate tectonics (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Plate_tectonics) and the theory of island biogeography. The field can largely be divided into five sub-fields: island biogeography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Island_biogeography), paleobiogeography, phylogeography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Phylogeography), zoogeography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Zoogeography) and phytogeography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Phytogeography)
Climatology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Climatology) is the study of the climate (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Climate), scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a long period of time. It differs from meteorology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Meteorology), which studies atmospheric processes over a shorter duration, which are then examined by climatologists to find trends and frequencies in weather patterns/phenomena. Climatology examines both the nature of micro (local) and macro (global) climates and the natural and anthropogenic (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Anthropogenic) influences on them. The field is also sub-divided largely into the climates of various regions and the study of specific phenomena or time periods e.g. tropical cyclone rainfall climatology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Tropical_cyclone_rainfall_climatology) and paleoclimatology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Paleoclimatology).
Pedology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Pedology_(soil_study)) is the study of soils in its natural environment. It is one of two main branches of soil science (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Soil_science), the other being edaphology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Edaphology). Pedology mainly deals with pedogenesis (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Pedogenesis), soil morphology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Soil_morphology), soil classification (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Soil_classification). In physical geography pedology is largely studied due to the numerous interactions between climate (water, air, temperature), soil life (micro-organisms, plants, animals), the mineral materials within soils (biogeochemical cycles (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Biogeochemical_cycles)) and its position and effects on the landscape such as laterization (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Tropical_rainforest#Characteristics).
Palaeogeography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Palaeogeography) is the study of the distribution of the continents through geologic time through examining the preserved material in the stratigraphic record. Palaeogeography is a cross-discipline, almost all the evidence for the positions of the continents comes from geology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geology) in the form of fossils or geophysics (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geophysics) the use of this data has resulted in evidence for continental drift (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Continental_drift), plate tectonics (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Plate_tectonics) and supercontinents (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Supercontinents) this in turn has supported palaeogeographic theories such as the Wilson cycle (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Wilson_cycle).
Coastal geography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Coastal_geography) is the study of the dynamic interface between the ocean and the land, incorporating both the physical geography (i.e coastal geomorphology, geology and oceanography) and the human geography of the coast. It involves an understanding of coastal weathering (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Weathering) processes, particularly wave action, sediment movement and weathering, and also the ways in which humans interact with the coast. Coastal geography although predominantly geomorphological in its research is not just concerned with coastal landforms, but also the causes and influences of sea level change (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Sea_level_change).
Oceanography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Oceanography) is the branch of physical geography that studies the Earth's oceans and seas. It covers a wide range of topics, including marine organisms and ecosystem dynamics (biological oceanography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Biological_oceanography)); ocean currents, waves, and geophysical fluid dynamics (physical oceanography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Physical_oceanography)); plate tectonics and the geology of the sea floor (geological oceanography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geological_oceanography)); and fluxes of various chemical substances and physical properties within the ocean and across its boundaries (chemical oceanography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Chemical_oceanography)). These diverse topics reflect multiple disciplines that oceanographers blend to further knowledge of the world ocean and understanding of processes within it.
Quaternary science (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Quaternary_science) is an inter-disciplinary field of study focusing on the Quaternary (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Quaternary) period, which encompasses the last 2.6 million years. The field studies the last ice age and the recent interstadial (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Interstadial) the Holocene (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Holocene) and uses proxy evidence to reconstruct the past environments during this period to infer the climatic and environmental changes that have occurred.
Landscape ecology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Landscape_ecology) is a sub-discipline of ecology (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Ecology) and geography that address how spatial variation in the landscape affects ecological processes such as the distribution and flow of energy, materials and individuals in the environment (which, in turn, may influence the distribution of landscape "elements" themselves such as hedgerows). The field was largely founded by the German geographer Carl Troll (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Carl_Troll) Landscape ecology typically deals with problems in an applied and holistic context. The main difference between biogeography and landscape ecology is that the latter is concerned with how flows or energy and material are changed and their impacts on the landscape whereas the former is concerned with the spatial patterns of species and chemical cycles.
Geomatics (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geomatics) is the field of gathering, storing, processing, and delivering of geographic information, or spatially referenced information. Geomatrics includes geodesy (scientific discipline that deals with the measurement and representation of the earth, its gravitational field, and other geodynamic phenomena, such as crustal motion, oceanic tides, and polar motion) and G.I.S. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Geographic_information_system) (a system for capturing, storing, analyzing and managing data and associated attributes which are spatially referenced to the earth) and remote sensing (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Remote_sensing) (the short or large-scale acquisition of information of an object or phenomenon, by the use of either recording or real-time sensing device(s) that is not in physical or intimate contact with the object).
Environmental geography (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Environmental_geography) is a branch of geography that describes the spatial aspects of interactions between humans and the natural world. The branch bridges the divide between human and physical geography and thus requires an understanding of the dynamics of geology, meteorology, hydrology, biogeography, and geomorphology, as well as the ways in which human societies conceptualize the environment. Although the branch was previously more visible in research than at present with theories such as environmental determinism (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Environmental_determinism) linking society with the environment. It has largely become the domain of the study of environmental management or anthropogenic influences on the environment and vice a versa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_geography

Ad Hominem indeed. And deeply disturbing.

PS.
Good thing that I dont buy that the earth was created 2000 years ago.

Clove

12-06-2009, 04:50 PM

Considering we have written history older than 2k, that's a safe statement.

Gan

12-06-2009, 05:00 PM

I'm not a creationist either. :p

Cephalopod

12-06-2009, 09:04 PM

So the study of Geography has nothing whatsoever to do with weather on Earth? Really?

Is that what I said? I'm sorry. I thought I asked when we started referring to retired geography professors as retired climatologists, not if climatology was a possible subdiscipline of geography.

If we follow your point to its logical conclusion, Phil McGraw should be calling himself a criminal psychologist (because he's got theories on criminal psychology, right?) and Bill Cosby should be calling himself a educational instruction professional. Further, Brian May should be calling himself an astrophysicist.

Er, wait... no, he is. I retract the last one, and bow to Brian May's awesomeness.

The fact that most of his points in that radio interview are the same misperceptions (in his case they must be intentional, right?) I already dealt with in this thread speaks more to the fact that he is NOT a respected climatologist, and never has been. He was a geography professor who attempted to pass himself off as Canada's first climatology PhD.

Gan

12-06-2009, 10:52 PM

Is that what I said? I'm sorry. I thought I asked when we started referring to retired geography professors as retired climatologists, not if climatology was a possible subdiscipline of geography.

If we follow your point to its logical conclusion, Phil McGraw should be calling himself a criminal psychologist (because he's got theories on criminal psychology, right?) and Bill Cosby should be calling himself a educational instruction professional. Further, Brian May should be calling himself an astrophysicist.

Er, wait... no, he is. I retract the last one, and bow to Brian May's awesomeness.

The fact that most of his points in that radio interview are the same misperceptions (in his case they must be intentional, right?) I already dealt with in this thread speaks more to the fact that he is NOT a respected climatologist, and never has been. He was a geography professor who attempted to pass himself off as Canada's first climatology PhD.

Since when is a retired geography professor referred to as a 'retired climatologist'? (omg, more ad hominem! Oh, wait, except his lack of credentials makes him singularly unfit for this sort of discussion. Nevermind.)

This is what you stated.

The fact is, climatology is a subdiscipline that is part of the field of Geography - that which the person you're attempting to discredit has a PhD in. Subdiscipline means part of and inclusion of. Saying the man has no credentials is patently wrong and you know it.

I understand that has you seeing red. But the fact remains none the less. Especially when your perception of respect in the field only pertains to the climatologists that happen to disagree with his viewpoints on global warming - I mean climate warming - I mean climate change.

:lol:

Cephalopod

12-06-2009, 11:15 PM

The fact is, climatology is a subdiscipline that is part of the field of Geography - that which the person you're attempting to discredit has a PhD in. Subdiscipline means part of and inclusion of. Saying the man has no credentials is patently wrong and you know it.

I understand that has you seeing red. But the fact remains none the less. Especially when your perception of respect in the field only pertains to the climatologists that happen to disagree with his viewpoints on global warming - I mean climate warming - I mean climate change.

:lol:

I said he wasn't a climatologist. He has no body of published work indicating that he is a climatologist, excepting numerous op-ed pieces he has written over the years decrying global warming. He claims to have been a climatology professor, but none of the universities he has attended or has been on the faculty of acknowledge him as a climatology professor.

The good doctor has stated, himself:
"I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."

When someone challenged these assertions in The Calgary Herald, he filed a lawsuit for libel. After The Calgary Herald and the op-ed author both filed statements of defense re-asserting all of their original positions, and the Calgary Herald further accused Dr. Ball (which makes me think of Robot Chicken) of being "a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist", Ball dropped his lawsuit.

But you are saying that because he has a PhD in geography, of which climatology is a subdiscipline, he is a climatologist?

He certainly has some strong credentials, there.

Gan

12-06-2009, 11:23 PM

Gan

12-06-2009, 11:24 PM

I said he wasn't a climatologist. He has no body of published work indicating that he is a climatologist, excepting numerous op-ed pieces he has written over the years decrying global warming. He claims to have been a climatology professor, but none of the universities he has attended or has been on the faculty of acknowledge him as a climatology professor.

The good doctor has stated, himself:
"I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."

When someone challenged these assertions in The Calgary Herald, he filed a lawsuit for libel. After The Calgary Herald and the op-ed author both filed statements of defense re-asserting all of their original positions, and the Calgary Herald further accused Dr. Ball (which makes me think of Robot Chicken) of being "a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist", Ball dropped his lawsuit.

But you are saying that because he has a PhD in geography, of which climatology is a subdiscipline, he is a climatologist?

He certainly has some strong credentials, there.

Source? (link plz)

Cephalopod

12-06-2009, 11:43 PM

Source? (link plz)

In response to this op-ed article Tim Ball wrote for the Calgary Herald (http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d622e9fa-cdc8-4163-8292-a1a554f58f94), Dr. Dan Johnson published this letter to the Calgary Herald:

Whatever one may feel about Tim Ball's denial of climate change science, newspapers ought to report factual summaries of authors' credentials. You note that he "was the first Climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years". Ball received a PhD in Geography in the UK in 1982, on a topic in historical climatology. Canada already had PhDs in climatology, and it is important to recognize them and their research. Examples include Kenneth Hare, a well-respected Professor at McGill, who received his PhD in 1950, also in the UK. Climatologist Andre Robert (PhD from McGill, 1965) conducted research that laid the groundwork in atmospheric models and climate. Timothy Oke, a leader in the study of urban climate, received his PhD from McMaster in 1967. According to Ball's website, he was not a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years. And how could he have? He did not even have an entry-level PhD until 1983, that would allow even Assistant Professor status. During much of the 28 years cited, he was a junior Lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as a geography professor. His work does not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere and the few papers he has published concern other matters. There are great gains to be made in science from conjectures and refutations, but sometimes denial is nothing more than denial.

Dan Johnson, PhD
Professor of Environmental Science
Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems
Department of Geography
University of Lethbridge

This led to the defamation and libel lawsuit that Ball filed.

In an earlier Opinion Page article in which Ball attacked the qualifications of renowned climate change author Tim Flannery, the Herald described Ball as “the first climatology PhD in Canada and … a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.”

Johnson wrote a Letter to the Editor challenging those details. He noted that when Ball received his PhD (in Geography) in 1983, “Canada already had PhDs in climatology and it is important to recognize them and their research.” Johnson also pointed out that Ball had been a professor for a much shorter time (Ball later admitted eight years), during which Ball did “not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”

Ball filed suit, asking for damages of $325,000 plus costs.

But Calgary Herald satisfied itself as to the accuracy of Dan Johnson’s letter, and rose in defence. In a Statement of Defence filed with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the Herald dismissed Ball’s “credibility and credentials as an expert on the issue of global warming,” saying: “The Plantiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

In the face of this rebuff, and of the earlier Statement of Defence filed by Dan Johnson, Ball discontinued his lawsuit.

Links to the lawsuit documents filed by Dr. Tim Ball, as well as the rebuttal documents by The Calgary Herald and Dr. Dan Johnson (http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents)

Cephalopod

12-06-2009, 11:53 PM

Pray tell me, what degree does your respected Phil D Jones have? I'm willing to bet its in the field or from a school of Geography.

*In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of your 'respected' Climatologists have degrees from their respective department/schools of Geography.

Imagine that.

Entirely possible, and no doubt likely. But many of them (Phil Jones included (http://en.scientificcommons.org/philip_d_jones)) have a lifetime of published, peer-reviewed work that backs up their credentials as a climatologist. Dr. Tim Ball has lied about his credentials in the past, and makes him very suspect as a 'respected climatologist.'

Also, I daresay that Phil Jones's post-doctoral work certifies him as a climatologist. You might be hard-pressed to say the same for Dr. Ball, unless you count his op-ed pieces.

http://media.noob.us/thumbs/robotchickendrball.jpg

Gan

12-07-2009, 12:07 AM

Entirely possible, and no doubt likely. But many of them (Phil Jones included (http://en.scientificcommons.org/philip_d_jones)) have a lifetime of published, peer-reviewed work that backs up their credentials as a climatologist. Dr. Tim Ball has lied about his credentials in the past, and makes him very suspect as a 'respected climatologist.'

Also, I daresay that Phil Jones's post-doctoral work certifies him as a climatologist. You might be hard-pressed to say the same for Dr. Ball, unless you count his op-ed pieces.

So your asseessment of the study of Geology not being relevant nor equitable to the field of climatology is wrong. I'm glad that you finally agree.

Cephalopod

12-07-2009, 12:11 AM

So your asseessment of the study of Geology not being relevant nor equitable to the field of climatology is wrong. I'm glad that you finally agree.

No, I still stand by my original question. When did we start referring to retired geography professors as retired climatologists?

(You've been trying for many posts to get me to acknowledge that I stated geography is not a super-discipline of climatology. I never said that, I've merely asked this same question.)

When Phil Jones retires, I'll be more than willing to accept him as a retired climatologist based on the merits of his work. Beyond being a professor of geography, I find no such merits in Dr. Balls work. Feel free to point me to the substantive scientific work of Dr. Ball that makes him more than a retired professor of geography.

Cephalopod

12-07-2009, 12:27 AM

I would like to add that I did find (1) climate-related scientific publication from Dr. Timothy Ball:
Climate of two locations on the Southwestern corner of Hudson Bay: AD 1720-1729 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114028240/abstract)

It has been cited by one other scientific publication:
On the Use of the Jesuit Order Private Correspondence Records in Climate Reconstructions: A Case Study from Castille (Spain) for 1634–1648 A.D.
(http://www.springerlink.com/content/g3l0l7t4n55q1747/)

I suppose I'd be willing to concede, based on this one publication, that he could be considered a retired climatologist, although his lying about his credentials still makes him suspect.

We could compare this to Phil Jones, who has published hundreds of scientific articles and has been cited as a primary source in hundreds of other publications. But it's not a pissing contest of who is more qualified or who has been subjected to more peer review, right?

Gan

12-07-2009, 12:30 AM

No, I still stand by my original question. When did we start referring to retired geography professors as retired climatologists?

(You've been trying for many posts to get me to acknowledge that I stated geography is not a super-discipline of climatology. I never said that, I've merely asked this same question.)

When Phil Jones retires, I'll be more than willing to accept him as a retired climatologist based on the merits of his work. Beyond being a professor of geography, I find no such merits in Dr. Balls work. Feel free to point me to the substantive scientific work of Dr. Ball that makes him more than a retired professor of geography.

You never asked that question initially. You simply attempted to discredit Dr. Ball's education as not creditable in the field of climatology. A time honored tradition and strategy when efforts to refute what is being said fail.

And you still fail to acknowlege that an education in geography contains study in physical geography which has a subdiscipline of climatology, which has credit in its own merit.

I understand how credit is a fickle thing. Afterall, isnt Dr. Jones's credit on the line right now (and the reason for the OP) with the leaked emails?

Parkbandit

12-07-2009, 09:02 AM

COPENHAGEN -- Shakespeare's Marcellus was right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

In this hotbed of homogeneity, where global warming is a sacred assumption for the faithful, 15,000 people will come together from 192 countries to pray for two weeks over what can be done to save the Earth from certain doom. Few places are better suited to handle the throngs of unquestioning believers who will journey from around the globe.

Dissent is not tolerated, and diversity -- in any form other than biodiversity -- is not welcome here.

But it turns out that Denmark's big claim to greenery isn't quite so impressive when you find out that they do not include one of their biggest and dirtiest industries -- shipping -- in calculating their annual carbon footprint.

That's because the last great world climate treaty, Kyoto, does not make them include their nasty shipping business in the calculation. No wonder the Danes liked that so much.

Even if President Obama gives away the farm when he arrives next week and signs some drastic pledge, it will be a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate.

His Democratic majority dwindles to basically nothing without members from coal states, heavy-industry states and other states where people generally would like to find a job.

But this crowd gathering here is far worse than just a bunch of hand-wringing Hamlets dithering in Denmark.

Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort.

That is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by more than 60 of the world's smaller countries in an entire year -- combined.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/warm_and_fuzzy_facts_RD1aMFGyyvy19b0ZTHaGwO#ixzz0Z 0lWCIHJ

In the Al Gore tradition.. more of "Do what I say, not what I do" mentality of the liberal left.

Cephalopod

12-07-2009, 10:15 AM

You never asked that question initially. You simply attempted to discredit Dr. Ball's education as not creditable in the field of climatology. A time honored tradition and strategy when efforts to refute what is being said fail.

What are you talking about? That question was my very first response to your posting of his video, and I admitted it was an ad hominem attack from the get-go.

Since when is a retired geography professor referred to as a 'retired climatologist'? (omg, more ad hominem! Oh, wait, except his lack of credentials makes him singularly unfit for this sort of discussion. Nevermind.)

To reiterate: Is he a retired climatologist? Does he have credentials making him fit for discussion as an expert in climatology? I believe I'm asserting 'no' to both of these, and I've seen nothing to the contrary, despite your continued pushing that because climatology is a subdiscipline of geography, he... must be an expert? What?

And you still fail to acknowlege that an education in geography contains study in physical geography which has a subdiscipline of climatology, which has credit in its own merit.

Yes, geography and physical geography have merit in discussions relative to climatology. But a professor in geography is still not automatically a professor of climatology, no matter what false credentials he may provide to prove it.

I understand how credit is a fickle thing. Afterall, isnt Dr. Jones's credit on the line right now (and the reason for the OP) with the leaked emails?

I've only seen one thing in all of the emails that puts Dr. Jones's credibility into question, and that I have not yet seen an adequate response to. That is his request of others to delete specific emails from Keith Briffa (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt) in 2008. There seems to be no logic to it, and it appears no one actually listened to him and deleted the emails. So why did he want them deleted?

I don't see any other scientists' credibility being put into question by the released emails, though... funny how 13 years worth of private emails is leaked, and there's only one ethically substantive issue. Can you imagine 13 years worth of private emails from, say, the tobacco or oil industry leaking?

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-07-2009, 10:51 AM

Celephais

12-07-2009, 11:01 AM

It's been 3 months! Time for Nachos to resurface on global warming. Funny how he stops responding though.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/reputation.php?p=1000984
http://forum.gsplayers.com/reputation.php?p=1000990
what the... learn to link
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1000984
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=1000990

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-07-2009, 11:02 AM

lol, it was the rising oceans and excessive heat that made me do it.

Cephalopod

12-07-2009, 11:12 AM

It's been 3 months! Time for Nachos to resurface on global warming. Funny how he stops responding though.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/reputation.php?p=1000984
http://forum.gsplayers.com/reputation.php?p=1000990

Sorry, once Tsa'ah and whoever get into a pissing match, I usually tune out. My patience for internet message boards only goes so far. I'll go back and re-read and respond to these now. I didn't realize someone expected a response from a talking tortilla chip. :)

EasternBrand

12-07-2009, 11:33 AM

For two pages you've both been arguing about the messenger instead of the message.

The first video was a serious attempt at cogent, in-depth analysis. It provided concrete examples and went into detailed explanations about them. The second video was a guy complaining that his feelings had been hurt, and was filled with vague assertions.

If I were coming at this from an entirely neutral point of view, there is no way I would put any credence in that second video (as compared with the first), even if Dr. Ball is a respected climatologist.

Gan

12-07-2009, 10:32 PM

Gan

12-07-2009, 10:43 PM

You mean how he's deeply disturbed about ad hominem attacks on individual people via confidential emails? Worse things are said on the PC, and this is a public forum.

I like the term "decide whether or not you're going to wear your shirt collar inside or outside your sweater." I'll wait. Oh, okay, inside. Fine choice.

What are you talking about? That question was my very first response to your posting of his video, and I admitted it was an ad hominem attack from the get-go.
Actually the post you just described was post 57, which was by EasternBrand (requoted for you above). Are you saying that your'e also posting as EasternBrand? Meaning you're one in the same? Why would you choose to post as two different entities arguing and supporting the same thing in the same thread? There was another person who got caught doing that - and we made fun of him constantly for being an idiot.

To reiterate: Is he a retired climatologist? Does he have credentials making him fit for discussion as an expert in climatology? I believe I'm asserting 'no' to both of these, and I've seen nothing to the contrary, despite your continued pushing that because climatology is a subdiscipline of geography, he... must be an expert? What?
We've rehashed this already. The guy you're attempting to discredit holds a PhD in Geography in which Climatology is a subdiscipline of. Thats like saying a medical doctor has no knowledge of cancer because he's not an oncologist. Try as you might - the man has the educational credentials and has quite a following if Google is any representation thereof.

Yes, geography and physical geography have merit in discussions relative to climatology. But a professor in geography is still not automatically a professor of climatology, no matter what false credentials he may provide to prove it.
We call this denail. You're not convincing anyone that the credibility issue has merit.

I've only seen one thing in all of the emails that puts Dr. Jones's credibility into question, and that I have not yet seen an adequate response to. That is his request of others to delete specific emails from Keith Briffa (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt) in 2008. There seems to be no logic to it, and it appears no one actually listened to him and deleted the emails. So why did he want them deleted?

I don't see any other scientists' credibility being put into question by the released emails, though... funny how 13 years worth of private emails is leaked, and there's only one ethically substantive issue?
Are you a climatologist? Do you have the credibility to make such an assumption or judgment? How many climate papers have you published? How many rigged peer reviews have you arranged for said papers?
Inquiring minds want to know...

EasternBrand

12-07-2009, 10:43 PM

Too bad you never came at this from an entirely neutral point of view.

I haven't spoken to my point of view on climate change in this or any other thread on the PC. You're still not addressing my main contention, which is that you linked a comparatively shitty conversation that proves nothing in the face of an illuminating analysis that seems to debunk a lot of claims made about the emails.

Gan

12-07-2009, 10:45 PM

I haven't spoken to my point of view on climate change in this or any other thread on the PC. You're still not addressing my main contention, which is that you linked a comparatively shitty conversation that proves nothing in the face of an illuminating analysis that seems to debunk a lot of claims made about the emails.
Illuminating analysis?

:lol:

EasternBrand

12-07-2009, 10:58 PM

Actually the post you just described was post 57, which was by EasternBrand (requoted for you above). Are you saying that your'e also posting as EasternBrand? Meaning you're one in the same? Why would you choose to post as two different entities arguing and supporting the same thing in the same thread? There was another person who got caught doing that - and we made fun of him constantly for being an idiot.

Let me break this down for you in small pieces.

1. I don't know Nachos DLC. I don't even eat bacon.

2. Just because the words "ad hominem" appear in both of our posts don't mean that we are arguing the same point.

3. My reference to "ad hominem" was in response to your "deeply disturbing" point. I read this post as indicating that you found either (a) the "conspiracy" of global warming as brought to light by the hacked emails or (b) certain individuals' unwillingness to agree with you to be "deeply disturbing." It was clever because the phrase was present in the video and referred back to Nacho's video-linking post. But what Dr. Ball called "deeply disturbing" was the "overall tone" of the emails, specifically the nastiness and--I am just guessing here--the likelihood that he was personally targeted for nasty comments. I was pointing out that the portion of the video you seem to have found most profoundly unsettling was that Dr. Ball got his feelings hurt.

4. Nacho's reference to "ad hominem" was because he set about to attack Dr. Ball's credentials.

I hope this has been helpful!

Gan

12-07-2009, 11:00 PM

Cephalopod

12-07-2009, 11:01 PM

We've rehashed this already. The guy you're attempting to discredit holds a PhD in Geography in which Climatology is a subdiscipline of. Thats like saying a medical doctor has no knowledge of cancer because he's not an oncologist. Try as you might - the man has the educational credentials and has quite a following if Google is any representation thereof.

He claims to be a retired climatology professor. He is a retired geography professor. A better analogy would be an general practitioner claiming to be a retired oncologist because he's had at least one cancer patient. Sure he has knowledge of oncology and cancer treatment, but he is not automatically an expert simply by nature of being in the same field.

I think my point here is that his educational credentials are not appropriate for the expert status he claims, and I'd be interested in knowing what 'following' he has that you see. Any other respected scientists, or a cadre of ignorant folks and scientists taking money from the energy industry, too?

Are you a climatologist? Do you have the credibility to make such an assumption or judgment? How many climate papers have you published? How many rigged peer reviews have you arranged for said papers?
Inquiring minds want to know...

I'm not and I don't. Nor have I ever claimed to be. For that matter, I doubt anyone on this board is an expert in climatology, health insurance reform, tax code, etc. (Well, okay, we may have a few lawyers around who are experts in some of the discussed topics). That's never stopped anyone here from speculating, making assumptions or being judgemental. :)

Cephalopod

12-07-2009, 11:04 PM

Also, lol @ me being EasternBrand. I never referenced his post(s), I was referring to my own post (which I've already requoted). As EasternBrand said, just because he and I both mentioned ad hominem attacks doesn't mean we were talking about the same thing.

EasternBrand

12-07-2009, 11:07 PM

You seriously misunderstood why I posted a link to a video in response to NDLC's video post. You even missed the mimic about quoting something from the video.

Please do us a favor and step away from the keyboard.

If only I were capable of divining your precise intent from seven words, I wouldn't have had to guess from context!

And how did I miss your purposeful echo when I specifically referenced it in my previous post (see sentence starting "It was clever...")?

Gan

12-07-2009, 11:10 PM

EasternBrand

12-07-2009, 11:34 PM

That laughing face icon you use all the time reminds me of Emeradan.

ARE YOU SURE YOU AREN'T HIM?!

Gan

12-07-2009, 11:41 PM

Too bad you have not been around long enough for that to even remotely appear humorous. :(

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads15/gay+called+demotivational+poster1251904186.jpg

EasternBrand

12-07-2009, 11:47 PM

Clearly because I'm relatively new to the PC I must also not have any grasp of the official boards. In fact, I was active on the officials all the way back in 1957 when we had to submit our comments via punch cards, but because we didn't have the Internet, we had to put our comments up on a pegboard at the local YMCA, which is why they came to be called "posts" in the first place.

Gan

12-08-2009, 07:28 AM

You missed my point again. :(

PS. You're phone is ringing.

Cephalopod

12-08-2009, 10:10 AM

Yea, you two seem to be quite the dynamic duo. I'm calling for an IP check! And I claim it first once its proven that EB and NDLC are one in the same. :lol:

PS. You tree (climate) huggers are a hoot to wire up.

Who's wired up? You and I have been arguing against mutual brick walls for 2-3 pages, I'd say you're just as wired. (Which is to say... not at all?)

If I'm EasternBrand, I want an IP check on you and PB, aisle two!

I googled a picture for 'NAAO!' and this came up, which pleased me:
http://www.naoyoshizaki.net/wp-content/images/Nao-Yoshizaki/Nao-Yoshizaki-front/Nao-Yoshizaki-3.jpg

Clove

12-08-2009, 10:25 AM

Plimer isn't a climatologist. It's not an ad hominem attack to observe when an academian has comprimised his credibility.

Gan isn't PB.

Next?

Geshron

12-08-2009, 10:28 AM

Hello, my name is Tamiqua, my granddaddy was a slave, and in my spare time I like to get off roller coasters sayin' "I can't breathe! I can't breathe!"

*lightens the mood some*
if you know which band the sample is from, you = awesome

Tsa`ah

12-08-2009, 08:20 PM

Sorry, once Tsa'ah and whoever get into a pissing match, I usually tune out. My patience for internet message boards only goes so far. I'll go back and re-read and respond to these now. I didn't realize someone expected a response from a talking tortilla chip. :)

You'll have to explain to me how 3 posts in a thread constitutes a pissing match but your back and forth with retards is somehow not classified as such.

Cephalopod

12-08-2009, 08:36 PM

You'll have to explain to me how 3 posts in a thread constitutes a pissing match but your back and forth with retards is somehow not classified as such.

I guess it counts as a pissing match. I ran out of urine, though.

Parkbandit

12-08-2009, 08:41 PM

I guess it counts as a pissing match. I ran out of urine, though.

Lucky for us, Tsa'ah never runs out of shit.

Tsa`ah

12-08-2009, 08:53 PM

Lucky for us, Tsa'ah never runs out of shit.

While it may appear that way to you, a guy who can't go a single day without posting, I don't actually post all that frequently.

Were we to examine your claim in a logical manner (difficult for you I know) and make use of statistical facts (face it, impossible for you) ... you, the guy with an average of 9 posts a day (rounded to a whole number) and doesn't miss posting at least some inane prattling each day appear to have in his possession the greater amount of "shit" when compared to myself ... a guy who doesn't post something every day, let alone every week, and averages 4 posts a day (rounded as well).

In short, a guy who has over twice the average of daily posts, and nearly three times the total posts ... shouldn't make such comments.

What you should do is work on your reading and comprehension abilities ... as is evidenced by your recent response to my post in another thread.

Parkbandit

12-08-2009, 09:04 PM

While it may appear that way to you, a guy who can't go a single day without posting, I don't actually post all that frequently.

And the shit starts out STRONG!!

Might want to go through all of my posts.. pretty sure there is a single day or two that I never posted.

Were we to examine your claim in a logical manner (difficult for you I know) and make use of statistical facts (face it, impossible for you) ... you, the guy with an average of 9 posts a day (rounded to a whole number) and doesn't miss posting at least some inane prattling each day appear to have in his possession the greater amount of "shit" when compared to myself ... a guy who doesn't post something every day, let alone every week, and averages 4 posts a day (rounded as well).

NINE POSTS A DAY!!! HOLY FUCKING SHIT! That might have taken me almost... holy shit... 4 minutes to write them all out!!! Can you imagine what my life would be with those 4 minutes a day back!

PS - I'm multi-tasking right at this very moment... not sure what came over me but as soon as you started posting today I had this overwelming desire to evacuate my rectum.

In short, a guy who has over twice the average of daily posts, and nearly three times the total posts ... shouldn't make such comments.

Sounds to me you wish your post count and dick were as big as mine. Ask Kranar if we can switch post count numbers so you don't feel fucked over by me and your parent's weak genes.

What you should do is work on your reading and comprehension abilities ... as is evidenced by your recent response to my post in another thread.

Perhaps it's not reading comprehension.. maybe it's your complete lack of communication skills?

So to summarize.. your post count is low, your dick is small and you have trouble expressing yourself in the written form.

Dude.. strike 3 imo.. you should swallow a quart of bleach.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-08-2009, 11:52 PM

We really doing the post count thing again?

8====>

NO U!

Gan

12-09-2009, 07:47 AM

http://www.newsinferno.com/wp-includes/images/Train-Derail-3.jpg

Nieninque

12-09-2009, 08:14 AM

Were we to examine your claim in a logical manner (difficult for you I know) and make use of statistical facts (face it, impossible for you) ... you, the guy with an average of 9 posts a day (rounded to a whole number) and doesn't miss posting at least some inane prattling each day appear to have in his possession the greater amount of "shit" when compared to myself ... a guy who doesn't post something every day, let alone every week, and averages 4 posts a day (rounded as well).

That is quite possibly the most logically-impaired statement I have ever seen.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-09-2009, 08:42 AM

I think the basis of the attack is formed with the assumption that lower post counts equates to quality posts. That is fundamentally flawed.

Now someone bring up Hitler!

Rocktar

12-09-2009, 09:16 AM

No U!

Hitler did it.

Hows that?

Now bring on more Asian boobs.

Tsa`ah

12-09-2009, 10:15 AM

We really doing the post count thing again?

8====>

NO U!

Not at all. Just pointing out how retarded it is to make such suggestions when one is sitting on the end all and be all pile of cumulative shit.

That is quite possibly the most logically-impaired statement I have ever seen.

Considering your history ... it doesn't surprise me.

I think the basis of the response is formed with the assumption that lower post counts equates to quality posts. That is fundamentally flawed.

Now someone bring up Hitler!

Corrected, and no. See my first response to your post.

Sean of the Thread

12-09-2009, 10:17 AM

Tsa'ah for an intelligent guy you can really be a douche.

Tsa`ah

12-09-2009, 10:19 AM

Tsa'ah for an intelligent guy you can really be a douche.

I love that I'm the douche when responding to a personal attack.The double standard is fucking hilarious.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-09-2009, 10:28 AM

A response that is an attack is still an attack, no?

Tsa`ah

12-09-2009, 10:31 AM

Again, I love the double standard.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-09-2009, 10:38 AM

Please explain how me asking a question is a double standard?

Tsa`ah

12-09-2009, 10:39 AM

That's not the double standard.

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-09-2009, 10:42 AM

Well don't keep it a secret... I can't read your mind. As your post is directly beneath my post I'm thinking something I said you believe is a double standard and I would disagree. I'm equally a dick to everyone :)

Tsa`ah

12-09-2009, 10:51 AM

Hey I don't know guy ... maybe instead of grilling me over a response to a direct personal attack you should grill the guy that made the direct personal attack?

Does that clear up the double standard comment?

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-09-2009, 11:07 AM

ROFL. If clarifying that an attack is an attack regardless if it's a response or the instigator is grilling you, I'll be sure and lighten up.

Cephalopod

12-09-2009, 01:14 PM

I think this devolved into another pissing match... here, let's get this back on track:

Sarah-Barracuda weighs in! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402.html)

A cute 'edit' by James Hrynyshyn (http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/12/sarah_palin_edited.php).

I was going to paste it here, but I can't figure out the 'strikethrough' code. Bleh.

Cephalopod

12-09-2009, 02:11 PM

More fun. Fox has some trouble with math: (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912080002)

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-20091204-raspoll.jpg

I like the female host's asseration that the poll was probably done before the emails were leaked -- in fact, the poll was "Conducted December 1-2, 2009 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_toplines/december_2009/toplines_climate_change_december_1_2_2009)", which is just a teeny bit after the original leak on November 17th.

Good thing Fox is on top of their data. I forget if this show counts as part of Fox's news programming or not...

Suppa Hobbit Mage

12-09-2009, 02:14 PM

I'm 110% sure that 50% of the time I'm 100% right.