Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-21-2009, 02:05 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,553
"This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,"

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center - washingtonpost.com

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Thank you
Russell

11-21-2009, 05:29 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 659
QuoteOriginally posted by Russell-Evans Quote
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center - washingtonpost.com

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Thank you
Russell
So... what is the point of this?

Whether or not these emails were true, or modified by the hacker, or even if they were taken out of context.... is completely irrelevant.

Anyone who believes there is a world conspiracy to pretend that climate change is real and happening now.... is a fool. The evidence is everywhere, especially in sensitive habitats like the polar regions!

Even if there was no hard evidence, it is only LOGICAL that we as a species do something about changing our polluting habits. Anything thoughts to the contrary is just plain ignorant and stupid.
11-21-2009, 06:19 PM   #3
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxmz Quote
So... what is the point of this?

Whether or not these emails were true, or modified by the hacker, or even if they were taken out of context.... is completely irrelevant.

Anyone who believes there is a world conspiracy to pretend that climate change is real and happening now.... is a fool. The evidence is everywhere, especially in sensitive habitats like the polar regions!

Even if there was no hard evidence, it is only LOGICAL that we as a species do something about changing our polluting habits. Anything thoughts to the contrary is just plain ignorant and stupid.
I agree with environmental stewardship. However, carbon trading is bullshit designed as a modern crooked shell game and will do nothing in the short or long term to deal with a dynamic planet. There are many natural forces driving climate change and have been since the earth formed. Why is not one wanting to do anything about plate tectonics, sun spots, the gradual shift in the earths axis etc.

Climate change is real and has been around a long time. However, we have had a problem with cold stress deaths of manatees in Florida at an alarming rate and has increased dramatically this decade.



Fish and Wildlife Research Institute

QuoteQuote:
"The two greatest threats to the future status of manatees are, in order, watercraft-related mortality and loss of warm-water winter habitat," said Dr. Michael Runge, lead author on the report and a research ecologist at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. "Any increase in watercraft-related mortality substantially increases the risk of the Florida manatee population reaching the point of no probable recovery, even if substantial mitigation of other threats occurs at the same time. Reduction of this single threat would greatly reduce the probability of the population reaching the point of no probable return."
The research showed that reduction of warm-water habitat also poses a significant threat to Florida manatees, especially over the long term. The model accounted for a substantial expected decline in warm-water sources, especially industrial ones, as technological and economic changes result in the loss of refuge sites at power plants over the next 20 to 40 years.
11-21-2009, 06:23 PM   #4
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxmz Quote
So... what is the point of this?

Whether or not these emails were true, or modified by the hacker, or even if they were taken out of context.... is completely irrelevant.

Anyone who believes there is a world conspiracy to pretend that climate change is real and happening now.... is a fool. The evidence is everywhere, especially in sensitive habitats like the polar regions!

Even if there was no hard evidence, it is only LOGICAL that we as a species do something about changing our polluting habits. Anything thoughts to the contrary is just plain ignorant and stupid.
Climate is changing. That is an undeniable fact. It's been warming since the ice age. Anyone who believes it's caused by man is a fool.

11-21-2009, 06:29 PM   #5
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Iceland
Posts: 15
QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxmz Quote
So... what is the point of this?

Whether or not these emails were true, or modified by the hacker, or even if they were taken out of context.... is completely irrelevant.

Anyone who believes there is a world conspiracy to pretend that climate change is real and happening now.... is a fool. The evidence is everywhere, especially in sensitive habitats like the polar regions!

Even if there was no hard evidence, it is only LOGICAL that we as a species do something about changing our polluting habits. Anything thoughts to the contrary is just plain ignorant and stupid.
Well, I don't know about "fool(s)", "plain ignorant" and "stupid", and I don't want to put words in Russell's mouth, but I believe that he was posting the news article to draw attention to the fact that the "scientific" evidence we are getting is not always very "scientific".

Whether we should do something about our polluting habits is another matter altogether. Of course we should. But in order to do so in a systematic and organised manner we need reliable scientific evidence. This does not help the cause.
11-21-2009, 06:33 PM   #6
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Jonska Quote
Well, I don't know about "fool(s)", "plain ignorant" and "stupid", and I don't want to put words in Russell's mouth, but I believe that he was posting the news article to draw attention to the fact that the "scientific" evidence we are getting is not always very "scientific".

Whether we should do something about our polluting habits is another matter altogether. Of course we should. But in order to do so in a systematic and organised manner we need reliable scientific evidence. This does not help the cause.
We should be good stewards of our planet. Period. But it shouldn't drive us to the poorhouse like crap and no trade will,
11-21-2009, 06:38 PM   #7
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonska Quote
Well, I don't know about "fool(s)", "plain ignorant" and "stupid", and I don't want to put words in Russell's mouth, but I believe that he was posting the news article to draw attention to the fact that the "scientific" evidence we are getting is not always very "scientific".

Whether we should do something about our polluting habits is another matter altogether. Of course we should. But in order to do so in a systematic and organised manner we need reliable scientific evidence. This does not help the cause.
Exactly. Funds are limited and have to be used effectively.

11-21-2009, 08:01 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonska Quote
Well, I don't know about "fool(s)", "plain ignorant" and "stupid", and I don't want to put words in Russell's mouth, but I believe that he was posting the news article to draw attention to the fact that the "scientific" evidence we are getting is not always very "scientific".

Frankly, even the article quoted doesn't lead to the conclusions which deniers would have us draw about it. That's where to look for some intellectual dishonesty: Whatever was meant by whoever typed those words, the article itself states there's nothing misleading about the graph in question.

If there's a 'trick' about that graph, it's apparently not a very good one, and we have only some interpretations by deniers of a quote out of what may or may not be altered versions of *stolen emails.*

Hardly a 'smoking gun'



QuoteQuote:
Whether we should do something about our polluting habits is another matter altogether. Of course we should. But in order to do so in a systematic and organised manner we need reliable scientific evidence. This does not help the cause.
The evidence is actually in. There's no reasonable basis whatsoever to doubt we've got serious problems.. We certainly know what CO2 does in the atmosphere, and we've been raising the concentrations of that and other greenhouse gases far more precipitously than we've ever seen in the natural record. If things change too fast, the biosphere, never mind our civilization, isn't going to be able to adapt quickly enough.

To claim there's some elaborate conspiracy and hoax about it is, frankly, ridiculous. The ones trying to cast doubt are the ones who are paid well to do so. We *do* have genuine copies of the Bush Administration's *editing* of scientific studies and documents, as well as gagging scientists working for our own government.
11-21-2009, 08:11 PM   #9
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
Frankly, even the article quoted doesn't lead to the conclusions which deniers would have us draw about it. That's where to look for some intellectual dishonesty: Whatever was meant by whoever typed those words, the article itself states there's nothing misleading about the graph in question.

If there's a 'trick' about that graph, it's apparently not a very good one, and we have only some interpretations by deniers of a quote out of what may or may not be altered versions of *stolen emails.*

Hardly a 'smoking gun'





The evidence is actually in. There's no reasonable basis whatsoever to doubt we've got serious problems.. We certainly know what CO2 does in the atmosphere, and we've been raising the concentrations of that and other greenhouse gases far more precipitously than we've ever seen in the natural record. If things change too fast, the biosphere, never mind our civilization, isn't going to be able to adapt quickly enough.

To claim there's some elaborate conspiracy and hoax about it is, frankly, ridiculous. The ones trying to cast doubt are the ones who are paid well to do so. We *do* have genuine copies of the Bush Administration's *editing* of scientific studies and documents, as well as gagging scientists working for our own government.
Actually thinking man in 100 years could change climate that much is ridiculous. And stupid. Follow the money. Right to algore.

And let's not forget much of this "research" is funded by grants. Follow the money. You don't find my results you don't find funding.
QuoteQuote:
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from
believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2
was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson
said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleocommercial
fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to
climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in
from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained.
“Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results
began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity
records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time,
[geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how
solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his
conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where
the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that
more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific
meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate
change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall
and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson
told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is
responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the
media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist
David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other
and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific
meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a
Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I
think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is)
we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the
atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not.
The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.
"

Last edited by graphicgr8s; 11-21-2009 at 08:27 PM.
11-21-2009, 10:12 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Actually thinking man in 100 years could change climate that much is ridiculous. And stupid. Follow the money. Right to algore.

No, it's hardly absurd. Funny coming from someone who doesn't 'believe in evolution,' either. The real money isn't in some elaborate 'climate change scheme:' it's in entrenched big money interests who *do* see their profits threatened by being required to take environmental measures instead of continuing to waste and pollute. Who actually *have* been caught doctoring and editing their 'science.'

QuoteQuote:
And let's not forget much of this "research" is funded by grants. Follow the money. You don't find my results you don't find funding.

'Grants' can come from anywhere. The deniers 'scientists' are in the employ of a) energy companies and b) Conservative political 'think tanks.' ...And their arguments are debunked by peer-reviewed science. It's easy to make misleading claims for an audience that doesn't *know* the science, and it takes longer to explain where theyve went wrong, but these claims that someone has 'debunked' global warming have each themselves been debunked.

Certainly, this claim of some 'smoking gun' about it just isn't borne out by what we're looking at. Maybe what it is is some ...oil interests have been opposing every conservation and alternative energy proposal since I was akid, and there's a well-funded campaign to obfuscate the *real* science?

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 11-21-2009 at 10:37 PM.
11-22-2009, 12:25 AM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,553
Original Poster
Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor - WSJ.com

"A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash.""

Thank you
Russell
11-22-2009, 02:40 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,553
Original Poster
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

QuoteQuote:
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal.

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! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. 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...
Thank you
Russell
11-22-2009, 10:22 AM   #13
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteQuote:
Grants' can come from anywhere. The deniers 'scientists' are in the employ of a) energy companies and b) Conservative political 'think tanks.' ...And their arguments are debunked by peer-reviewed science. It's easy to make misleading claims for an audience that doesn't *know* the science, and it takes longer to explain where theyve went wrong, but these claims that someone has 'debunked' global warming have each themselves been debunked.
You are so full of shit on this one you should be charged a sewer bill. You keep on with the denier crap as if it is a religion and unfortunately, to many it is. You also act like the audience of the "believers" are "in the Know" on science. As far as grant funding goes, 80% of it comes from public sources and that is being conservative. It may be closer to 90%. NSF, NRI etc etc are public sources.

The devil is in the details on climate change. The "global warming" was a fear game to get a panic reaction among the general population. Originally it was for increased grant funding. Somewhere along the line a bunch of politicians wanted in on the racket. I assure you that there are many scientists that acknowledge climate change by understand that there are many forces driving it.
11-22-2009, 11:33 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
You are so full of shit on this one you should be charged a sewer bill. You keep on with the denier crap as if it is a religion and unfortunately, to many it is. You also act like the audience of the "believers" are "in the Know" on science. As far as grant funding goes, 80% of it comes from public sources and that is being conservative. It may be closer to 90%. NSF, NRI etc etc are public sources.

Ok. So I'm 'so full of shit' for saying what the 'denier crap' according to you, 'unfortunately is, for many?'

Does that mean we're both full of shit?

Yes, many believe that anything 'environmental' is against their religion, for failing to 'subdue and overpopulate the Earth' ...even believing that it is somehow thwarting their God's will' of private enterprise making billions while accelerating Jesus coming back to end the world. (You know, sounds more like some James Bond villain's scheme than what Christianity's supposed to be, that.)

People will believe any thin and 'sciencey' excuse to be in denial under those circumstances.. Just like the corporations say 'It'll cost jobs if we have to be 'greener,' ...Then they outsource the jobs *anyway* and say, 'Blame the liberals for all that regulation that didn't happen.'






QuoteQuote:
The devil is in the details on climate change.
I don't think it's about 'devils.' *Details* out of context can be sophomorically-construed to undercut the idea of 'Global warming,' but even if you dress it up in a study, it's still basically just saying, 'It's cold today. Global warming must be a scam.'

Well. Maybe it's cold today cause the extra *heat* is *driving the cold air down from where it'd previously been keeping the ice caps cold and keeping our weather patterns fairly regular.*

Assorted factoids in isolation do not a 'big picture' make. They just don't.



QuoteQuote:
The "global warming" was a fear game to get a panic reaction among the general population. Originally it was for increased grant funding. Somewhere along the line a bunch of politicians wanted in on the racket. I assure you that there are many scientists that acknowledge climate change by understand that there are many forces driving it.
None of the 'alternative theories' actually make any kind of case it's a grand idea to continue burning what's left of our easily-accessible fossil fuels with abandon.

If the Sun *were* getting brighter right now... (No one's ever shown a measurement on this theory that I have seen) That would make it *twice* as urgent to reduce greenhouse gas levels, not *less.*

In that scenario, who *cares* whose 'fault' it is? What, 'It's not our fault, let's make ourselves twice as screwed?

Now here's a theory of 'Evil science grad students are making it all up for the grants, despite the fact that the private sector *pays better!*'

This is just more of people doing the Roveian thing of 'Accuse your opponents of what you've already been caught brazenly doing, yourself.'
11-22-2009, 01:07 PM - 1 Like   #15
Veteran Member
SteveM's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,294
OK ..let me get this straight...

If I turn my car on in my garage with the door closed it's a bad thing... Why?, cause it is pumping out stuff that isn't OK for me....carbon monoxide etc. OK..I get that.

If everyone turns on their cars and drives downtown...every day...for decades...that's OK. Why?...cause it's outside. Outside goes on like forever...the smelly gas goes away..

Oh..you're telling me it doesn't go away? Where does it go?... What?...there is a set limit to where the stinky gas can go?..and we keep adding to it? I don't like that...so I'm not going to believe it. Just like the poop Victoria pumps directly into the ocean every day....it goes away and I don't see it anymore...so it doesn't exist. I'm looking at the ocean from my window right now...no poop!...poop doesn't exist... I like to believe that people never poop...it's better that way.

Sooner or later we are going to realize that we have sh*t the bed....but for right now we'll just lay still and pretent it didn't happen....
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do custom "artistic" or even "funny" lens caps evenexist? lovemehate Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 33 02-10-2016 09:10 AM
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge MRRiley Post Your Photos! 27 02-21-2010 08:26 PM
K20d-Frame Count on panals..works w/"M" & "P" mode only? arbib Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 08-28-2009 05:47 PM
Clicking at the "decisive moment": sniper or machine gun? shuttervox Photographic Technique 39 08-13-2009 10:34 AM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top