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.
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 01:17 AM.
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.
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®
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.Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
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?
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.
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 04:21 PM.
Sent from my iPad®
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.
Why/how is that statement inaccurate? It is not the same thing at all.
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.
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.
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?
Are you sure about that?But many good things will likely have come out of it.
Could we not argue that regardless of which energy system we decided to continue to use that significant advances would and will be made in that area? The area could be solar, nuclear, geothermal, coal, etc., etc.
It seems we rule out our current tech as somehow primitive when in all actuality it is anything but primitive. If there were a substitute we would be using it. I believe in the power of science and believe that significant advances can be made without alarmism and calling people believers and deniers. I'm of the Christian faith and we use terms like believer and denier to denote those who do believe in Christ and those who do not. I really do not think those terms apply anywhere outside of religion. Science is not about believers and deniers but about facts and various people questioning those facts to reveal new facts. Segregating out groups like believers and deniers for the purpose of science is not only unethical (to say one person's findings are somehow inferior to a common accepted 'belief' system in the scientific community b/c they do not agree with said 'belief') but does not get us anywhere.
Whether we like it or not, and both sides have to agree on this, our current so-called fossil fuel economy has gotten us to this point. We can't just throw it out over-night without a suitable realistic replacement. And sorry Toyota but it's going to take more than your Prius to get us there. We need realistic solutions. All I see is alarmism such as we are already too late and anything we do now will still be too late....and so forth. Hogwash. So do these people not believe what they are selling? That's not a good way to get people to act on something to say that no matter what we do (IE: no matter how much we spend) it probably won't help....but we should still do it just in case. Sorry, not buying that. Come up with some real solutions that extend beyond telling me to make sure my tires are fully inflated, my light bulbs are of a certain sort, and that I should cut down on my trips when the local airport here is filling aircraft with tens of thousands of gallons of av fuel to cart people to point A and back nearly four times a day or more. If we want to get serious then come up with some serious solutions. Otherwise it just looks to me like those idiot scientists on Armageddon who were coming up with solar sails and other ridiculous ideas that clearly would not work. We need answers long before we need political manuevering.
I'm confident that in the end we will come out understanding more about our planet, ourselves, and what we can do to make this a better place to live. I once thought we might be able to explore other planets but alas I will probably never see that in my lifetime and perhaps its a good thing. We have enough to figure out and study within our own atmosphere long before we have any business looking at others.
But the 'trekkie' in me is still hopeful.
I think it is likely, but of course I'm not sure. While there will always be continual scientific advances, research costs money and if more money is spent and more incentives laid out for alternate forms of energy then it is likely that those things will happen sooner than they would otherwise. And while better use of oil or coal is not a bad thing, a cheap and easy to use alternative source of energy would be better than just better use of fossil fuels, since it would actually provide an alternative. The problem is that it will take a while to get those technologies to a point where they can be used on a large scale. If efforts are made to curb global warming and they turn out to be fruitless in that respect, at least they will have provided benefits in the realm of alternative energies that otherwise would have taken years longer. To me, that's much better than the flip side, ignoring global warming and possibly being wrong about it and having catastrophic events occur.
But later in your post you are asking for real solutions and real answers. Those things don't grow on trees. They take work, and they cost money. So you're asking for answers before spending money on the problem, but you can't get answers until you spend money on the problem.
And the thing is, what would you have these people do? They look at the science (and not just the hysteria) and it tells them that there will be major effects on humanity in their lifetimes. Of course they're going to work hard to make that issue known and of course they're going to be upset with people that try to silence them. What you call people being alarmists, they consider to be doing good work. It's not just Al Gore working on this, it's hundreds if not thousands of people. You only see it as alarmism because you're not convinced of the truth of their claims. But if they are convinced, why should they stop? The alternative for them is this:
Attachment 9514
