The eery silence that is ClimateGate

This is a discussion on The eery silence that is ClimateGate within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Can't we just build a giant mirror, send it into orbit, and reflect a healthy portion of the sun's rays ...

  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,246
    Can't we just build a giant mirror, send it into orbit, and reflect a healthy portion of the sun's rays back into space? Seems like a logical solution to me.
    bit∙hub [bit-huhb] n. A source and destination for information.

  2. #62
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,404
    Quote Originally Posted by bithub View Post
    Can't we just build a giant mirror, send it into orbit, and reflect a healthy portion of the sun's rays back into space? Seems like a logical solution to me.
    Logic has nothing to do with reality
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #63
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    This is encouraging news. Now that the data is going to be available we will get several independent opinions based on the same factual data. I guess that is all we are asking for is a second look by an independent group.

    Now if the result is they agree (without being coerced) that AGW is definitely happening and it can be traced back to just science and not politics, pressure, money, etc., then I will be satisfied.
    I don't feel confident, at all. The skeptics are in no better position now than they were before November of this year. As long as servers need to be hacked and private conversations need to be stolen in order to get answers, then all "independent" research institutions such as CRU (and Met Office) need to do is make sure they keep their secret conversations more secret. Then they can go back to business as usual.

    Met Office is going to comeback with their "new" findings saying CRU was correct and that all of the hype with the "hiding details", "manipulating data", and "dissenting of counter evidence" was overblown and plays no effect to the "facts." Anyone that says otherwise will be coerced into not releasing their data the same way they've always been.
    Sent from my iPad®

  4. #64
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    I was trying to be optimistic.

    No matter. I'm convinced enough it is untrue that eventually the truth will come out in the end. Fighting about this or that only seems to make it worse b/c I have an answer or a retaliation as does the other side. I guess it all comes out in the wash eventually.

  5. #65
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    I was trying to be optimistic.

    No matter. I'm convinced enough it is untrue that eventually the truth will come out in the end. Fighting about this or that only seems to make it worse b/c I have an answer or a retaliation as does the other side. I guess it all comes out in the wash eventually.
    The truth will come out in the end when we're all in our sixties having the debate about "Global Sinking" and someone brings up the point of "Hey remember back in the 2000s when everyone was afraid of 'Global Warming.'"

    The fact is that life is far too boring not to overdramatize it the same way humans always have since the beginning of time. If it's not one thing, it's another... at least we have something to talk about other than C++0x for a change.
    Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 12-08-2009 at 11:00 PM.
    Sent from my iPad®

  6. #66
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by rdrast View Post
    Is anyone here old enough to actually remember the huge scare and hype over "Global Cooling" in the early to mid 70's?

    There were going to be catastrophe's, glaciers, hemisphere spanning storms, and all because of... Carbon! Reflecting sunlight back into space!
    Yes, I am old enough to remember 'Global Dimming'. It was particulates like carbon (soot) and suphites etc which caused up to 10% less sunlight.

    The 'Clean Air Act of 1970' in the US reduced this type of pollutant by 53% (increased protections introduced in '77 and '90).

    Similar laws were enacted in Europe and elsewhere.

    EDIT: Aircraft contrails have been suspected as a major cause, but studies of climate patterns from the '60s (pre mass air transit) to now, studies over the Maldives and comparisons of non flight path to flight path temps could not 100% prove the relationship.

    It was not until 911 that this relationship was confirmed.

    This is why contrail studies are not a 'single point of data' as some might claim.
    Last edited by novacain; 12-08-2009 at 11:22 PM.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  7. #67
    Just Lurking Dave_Sinkula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,006
    Interesting:
    iowahawk: Fables of the Reconstruction
    I haven't tried it yet myself.
    7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
    40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*

  8. #68
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    Eh. Was going to post a response but I really sort of want this thread to die. I think we have exhausted the topic until new information surfaces about the ordeal.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 12-12-2009 at 12:17 AM.

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    I know you wanted to let this topic die, but I ran across two recent articles that include a review of the emails and a fact check of the claims some global warming skeptics made regarding them:

    “Climategate” | FactCheck.org
    The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

    Just thought you or others might be interested.

  10. #70
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    Those articles seem to attempt the dismiss the fears of the skeptics by insisting that "the emails don't show global warming was faked." Something that most skeptics aren't insisting in the first place. It's a clear straw man argument.

    Both articles suggest that they don't prove anything has been faked, yet they both express that the emails suggested some eerie attempts at dismissing skeptics and hiding counter data and that's all the skeptics really need to see because once people realize that the "climatologists" don't have their theories wrapped up with a pretty little bow, it leaves room to doubt them and consider alternative viewpoints. This is a battle won for the skeptics, there is no doubt about it... and the only defense that CRU is suggesting that we're making a bigger deal of the emails than we really are.
    Sent from my iPad®

  11. #71
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    The climatologists do appear to be on the ropes at this time. And I agree that what they continue to assert no one is questioning but what they are failing to point out (that any opposition was quelled without debate) is what everyone is asking about. If it can be proven they indeed engaged in subterfuge to quiet those that were seeking answers or questioning their theories/results or hypothesis then how can we trust any of them on other matters?
    I say we can't b/c they have proven a complete disregard for any kind of opposition and in some ways seem very egotistic to me as to not have enough time to actually discuss their theories and findings with underlings who question them. That fact alone is quite scary.

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    Those articles seem to attempt the dismiss the fears of the skeptics by insisting that "the emails don't show global warming was faked." Something that most skeptics aren't insisting in the first place. It's a clear straw man argument.
    The factcheck article specifically references two sources that make claims that they are checking. How is that a strawman? In addition, the AP article puts the data hiding and skeptic silencing topics on about the same footing as the discussion of faking data. I'm not sure if you were presuming the content of these articles before you read them, but they aren't merely propaganda meant to defend global warming believers. And if skeptics don't believe that the data were faked as you contend, then these articles are more critical of the scientists than defensive.
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    Both articles suggest that they don't prove anything has been faked, yet they both express that the emails suggested some eerie attempts at dismissing skeptics and hiding counter data and that's all the skeptics really need to see because once people realize that the "climatologists" don't have their theories wrapped up with a pretty little bow, it leaves room to doubt them and consider alternative viewpoints. This is a battle won for the skeptics, there is no doubt about it... and the only defense that CRU is suggesting that we're making a bigger deal of the emails than we really are.
    It depends on what's being charged. Despite your claims, there are charges that the data is fraudulent (see some links provided in this very thread). Those claims appear to be proven false, the emails do not show any data faking. The emails do show poor behavior by scientists, but behavior that is consistent with human nature and not necessarily indicative of any kind of fraud. So again, the relevance of the emails is minimal with respect to the overall question of global warming. Alternative viewpoints should have been (and likely have been) considered throughout the lifetime of the global warming theory. These emails do little to make such consideration any higher of a priority than it was previously.

    So, isn't the bottom line that the emails show questionable to very bad behavior by a handful of climate scientists but little evidence to refute their findings?

  13. #73
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    The climatologists do appear to be on the ropes at this time. And I agree that what they continue to assert no one is questioning but what they are failing to point out (that any opposition was quelled without debate) is what everyone is asking about. If it can be proven they indeed engaged in subterfuge to quiet those that were seeking answers or questioning their theories/results or hypothesis then how can we trust any of them on other matters?
    I say we can't b/c they have proven a complete disregard for any kind of opposition and in some ways seem very egotistic to me as to not have enough time to actually discuss their theories and findings with underlings who question them. That fact alone is quite scary.
    Hmm, you say "any opposition was quelled without debate" and the rest of your post follows along this assumption, but that is far from the truth. Plenty of alternate theories and studies have been printed and discussed.

    And again, you appear to be viewing their actions through your own lens without leaving room for other possible explanations. Can you not see how someone who believes so strongly in the accuracy of their findings and who believes strongly in the dishonesty of those skeptical of their findings that such behavior could occur without malicious intent?

  14. #74
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    The factcheck article specifically references two sources that make claims that they are checking. How is that a strawman?
    They're refuting claims made by a select group of the "anti-global warming" community and then associate the claims to essentially anyone who might fall under "climate skeptic." I quote "anti-global warming" because the community isn't necessarily anti-global warming, but rather against the mainstream opinion of it. Anyway, the goal, of course, being to convince its reader that all global warming skeptics agree with the statements they are refuting and therefore make the reader feel that the case against CRU is completely fraudulent.

    Now, as I and Bubba both suggest... whether or not the emails prove that any global warming data is faked, the emails do show, and both articles provided seem to agree, that the emails suggested unethical behavior on CRUs part in the covering up or lack of consideration for counter evidence in their studies. This fact alone is enough to question the integrity of the studies they've done over the last decade or so.

    That said, I can't entirely agree with the opinions of the authors of the articles cited, anyway. For instance, statements such as "We simply note that "fiddling" with the way data are displayed — even in a way that some may see as misleading — is not the same thing as falsifying the numbers," as found in the FactCheck.org article. Given the context of that article, this a very inaccurate statement. It also dedicates long paragraph of their article ("Confusing the Public") to public understanding and scientific consensus of global warming, which is entirely out of context when the questioning isn't of global warming but the human influence.

    I could pick apart the FactCheck.org article sentence by sentence and pull out a half-dozen logical fallacies in it... the simple fact is that neither of those articles address the concerns that most climate skeptics have. It really just preaches to the converted by dismissing the opinions of few and making it appear to be the opinions of many.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    So, isn't the bottom line that the emails show questionable to very bad behavior by a handful of climate scientists but little evidence to refute their findings?
    Yes, I would agree with that. However, wouldn't you say that the behavior exhibited by certain CRU scientists create even the smallest possibility that the data being given to our politicians aren't completely accurate and that perhaps other organizations which support CRU's finding might also exhibit the same bad behavior in their labs? Isn't that enough to suggest we reevaluate the data a bit more before we as a planet throw N-Billions of dollars into a project that might yield little to no gain?
    Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 12-14-2009 at 03:21 PM.
    Sent from my iPad®

  15. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,317
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    They're refuting claims made by a select group of the "anti-global warming" community and then associate the claims to essentially anyone who might fall under "climate skeptic." I quote "anti-global warming" because the community isn't necessarily anti-global warming, but rather against the mainstream opinion of it. Anyway, the goal, of course, being to convince its reader that all global warming skeptics agree with the statements they are refuting and therefore make the reader feel that the case against CRU is completely fraudulent.
    I think you're inferring an agenda where none exists. Half of the AP article is critical of CRU scientists. That article also uses the term "climate scientists" in the same way that it uses the term "skeptics", even though the emails came from only a handful of climate scientists. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that either of these articles have a "goal" other than what they are presenting.

    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    For instance, statements such as "We simply note that "fiddling" with the way data are displayed — even in a way that some may see as misleading — is not the same thing as falsifying the numbers," as found in the FactCheck.org article. Given the context of that article, this a very inaccurate statement.
    Why/how is that statement inaccurate? It is not the same thing at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    It also dedicates long paragraph of their article ("Confusing the Public") to public understanding and scientific consensus of global warming, which is entirely out of context when the questioning isn't of global warming but the human influence.

    I could pick apart the FactCheck.org article sentence by sentence and pull out a half-dozen logical fallacies in it... the simple fact is that neither of those articles address the concerns that most climate skeptics have. It really just preaches to the converted by dismissing the opinions of few and making it appear to be the opinions of many.
    Some people believe the earth is not warming. Some believe it is warming but that it is a natural cycle. Some believe it is warming, but not enough to significantly impact humanity. The factcheck article (as it normally does) takes a few specific items and "checks the facts" on those. Nobody is saying that this is the be-all and end-all proof that the emails are irrelevant and that man-made glolbal warming is fact. It almost seems like that's what you're thinking is being presented. Instead, these are just a couple additional interesting articles that discuss topics that have been brought up in this thread and in discussions of this controversy elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    Yes, I would agree with that. However, wouldn't you say that the behavior exhibited by certain CRU scientists create even the smallest possibility that the data being given to our politicians aren't completely accurate and that perhaps other organizations which support CRU's finding might also exhibit the same bad behavior in their labs? Isn't that enough to suggest we reevaluate the data a bit more before we as a planet throw N-Billions of dollars into a project that might yield little to no gain?
    How sure do you have to be before you do something about a problem? The people making these decisions seem pretty confident in the science. The emails show bad behavior but don't make it more likely that the findings are wrong. So why wait longer?

    If it turns out that the science was wrong, then sure, it will be a blunder. But many good things will likely have come out of it. If it turns out the science is right but nothing is done, then it will be a lot worse than a "blunder". Because of that, I'd prefer to take the chance if the science is at all credible, and it sure sounds like most countries and their leaders believe that it is.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. C programing doubt
    By sivasankari in forum C Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 09:19 AM
  2. silence warning when assigning pointers
    By eth0 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-27-2005, 11:18 AM
  3. Omens and the Silence Before the Storm
    By Unregd in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2003, 06:19 PM
  4. internet radio day of silence.
    By ygfperson in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-01-2002, 09:23 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21