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.
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.
Logic has nothing to do with realityOriginally Posted by bithub
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.
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®
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.'"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 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; 12-09-2009 at 12:00 AM.
Sent from my iPad®
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; 12-09-2009 at 12:22 AM.
"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
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.*
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 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
