Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=4444)

Whatfur 11-28-2009 09:00 AM

Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
Figured that Climategate and its ramifications deserved its own section here and that Mr. Orr, whose book sales may have a direct correlation to this topic, has suffered enough.

Whatfur 11-28-2009 09:03 AM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
"Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They'd be better off acknowledging that the only "consensus" right now is that the world needs to start over on climate "science.""

Read the source.

Whatfur 11-28-2009 09:18 AM

Climate crack up.
 
"The way the Kultursmog works, liberal elites through their undemocratic dominance of cultural institutions -- the media, the universities, government bureaucracies -- create beliefs, problems, and bugaboos, by studiously ignoring disagreement and by ceaselessly repeating deceits and distortions."

Read the rest...

Whatfur 11-28-2009 08:56 PM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
Some old and some interesting additions. FOIA request chronology.

Whatfur 11-28-2009 11:15 PM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
Pure Peer Review.

Whatfur 11-29-2009 12:06 AM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
Wow, lets look at what Melanie Phillips had to say 2 years ago.

Whatfur 11-29-2009 09:27 AM

Would you like ice with your kool-aid?
 
Playing hockey with polar bears...or something like that.


Just a nice breakdown of all the bullshit we have had to wade through...

Whatfur 11-29-2009 05:07 PM

Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation
 
"Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker."

osmium 11-29-2009 08:35 PM

Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?
 
The explanations given by the scientists in question sound reasonable to me. (In an article linked in the article linked in the message I'm replying to.)

But more importantly, modeling work always sounds this way. I have a problem with journalists who focus on climate models because they sound pleasing and technical.

Models are models, and that's fine, but the discussion of the earth's climate should be based (in every article) on concrete, provable facts, such as:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2) Basic material balances can be used to show the problem: draw a box for carbon in condensed matter (the ground) and a box for carbon in the air. Draw arrows to show the rates of transfer between the two. The imbalance in possible rates is clear.

3) Venus and Mars show us examples of extremes in greenhouse effect.

Add to that the fact that the research going into reducing CO2 emissions is proceeding through the same channels as our military, computing, and health research. Capitalism is in play, the people who can make energy cleaner will become rich men and women. Frankly, I continually fail to understand why everyone doesn't think that's a good thing.

If the world read my personal emails about my research, and saw my daily cynicism, it would come off much the same I think. People are due the knowledge that they are communicating on the record, to state things the proper way.

EDIT: While I think these emails are probably not going to affect the landscape scientifically, I think the calls for more transparency in this article are correct. The fact that climate scientists compete with each other fairly intensely (just like in all scientific fields) drives people to keep their data as secret as possible. There must be a solution someone can work up, if people try.

Whatfur 11-30-2009 11:06 AM

Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 140664)
The explanations given by the scientists in question sound reasonable to me. (In an article linked in the article linked in the message I'm replying to.)

...

EDIT: While I think these emails are probably not going to affect the landscape scientifically, I think the calls for more transparency in this article are correct. The fact that climate scientists compete with each other fairly intensely (just like in all scientific fields) drives people to keep their data as secret as possible. There must be a solution someone can work up, if people try.


First, thanks for replying here!!! I was hoping you might.

I think the keeping of the data secret is the least of the problems. So is part of the scientific landscape also denigrating the work of others, not because it is wrong but because it points out flaws in yours? You seem to be giving them a rather large benefit of doubt. Don't you think the size of their "landscape", what they personally had invested, and the fact that the limb they crawled out on was visable around the world gave them added incentive to make sure people thought they were right...even in cases they were wrong? I also think that many people, possibly like you, would be inclined to defend because they are also defending their own reliance on them. (i.e. See Emperor's New Clothes)

I found it also funny that on the same day I read that they had agreed to make their entire database public...they admitted that most/much of the raw data that most/much of their models/claims are based on has been deleted. Supposedly, the deletion was not a recent development (although the admittance is), but this just does not bode well.

Other than that:

1. Yes, C02 is a greenhouse gas...Has it not reached heights in history surpassing those of today and generally with positive effects on life?

2. Key word "possible". Inferred problems debatable.

3. Dynamics on Venus and Mars, although interesting, are barely comparable. Not many factories or cars there either. (Kind of like your mother saying, keep crossing your eyes and they will stay that way)

But, yes lets look at doing things as thinking humans that reduce our impact without lying about it or turning AGW into the new religion that trys to tell everyone that you either think the way they do or the world will end.

bjkeefe 12-01-2009 09:14 AM

'fur's oars: still out of the water
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 140548)
Figured that Climategate and its ramifications deserved its own section here and that Mr. Orr, whose book sales may have a direct correlation to this topic, has suffered enough.

Hmmm ... links to bloviations by Kimberly Strassel, Emmett Tyrell, Ace o' Spuds (2007 CPAC Blogger of the Year! (now fallen)), Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Christopher Booker, ... a veritable Who's Who of "Conservative Opinions Outweigh Science!!!1!"

You're good to have started this new thread out of concern for Orr, though -- he would be suffering stitches in his side from laughter. I know I am.

osmium 12-01-2009 09:44 AM

Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 140720)
I also think that many people, possibly like you, would be inclined to defend because they are also defending their own reliance on them. (i.e. See Emperor's New Clothes)

People on blogs say this a lot, but it's not something that makes sense--it just sounds good on a blog. A lot of people justify energy research with a climate change rationale (yes, me included), but it is not something that relies on a deep reading of the computer models in question. Incidentally, the same research is often justified in the same breath from a military, health, or national security point of view. (Our stated goal at the energy institute where I work is to decrease oil imports.)

And no one participates in conspiracies to save a particular line of research. Really. Chasing funding is what grant-writing scientists do, and they are used to having to re-tool. No one may have noticed, but the hydrogen economy and automotive fuel cells have gone out of vogue in the past 2 years. (A few years after the President was giving a hydrogen lecture during the state-of-the-union.) Lots of scientists had/have money and expertise tied up in that, and now they are having to branch out. No one perpetrated a conspiracy to lie to the world and keep their lives easy. It is what happens.

I do agree with you, however, that when an area of study becomes important enough to become hyper-political, like climate research has become, they need to take special precautions to keep everything looking squeaky clean, and people with critical views have to be included (and I mean scientists in the field with PhD's, not companies or politicians or laymen).

Unfortunately, hyper-political hyper-scrutiny is not good for science. It hardens opinions, and steals away the fluidity that science requires. Mostly I feel sorry for the people who work in that field and have to put up with having their every word choice ('trick' etc) combed over by an army of people who aren't interested in advancing science at all.

But maybe they like it. The scrutiny. I really don't know. More power to them.

Whatfur 12-01-2009 09:51 AM

Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 140837)
...

I do agree with you, however, ...

And I agree with you on some too but there are some obvious prejudice you casually espouse...that I don't have time now to get into right now. Later.

osmium 12-01-2009 09:53 AM

Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 140720)
2. Key word "possible". Inferred problems debatable.

What I mean by "possible" is "what is actually possible." As in, there is not a way anyone knows of yet to speed up the rate at which carbon is removed from the air and placed into a condensed (solid, liquid) state, such as rock or petroleum.

Finding a way would solve a lot of problems.

BTW, When I was looking around at info on these climate email hacks to respond, I read something I really liked, but I don't remember where. Someone pointed out that Freeman Dyson's "carbon-eating trees" thing he wrote in the New York Review is nuts. (He's saying you could genetically engineer trees to consume carbon at a faster rate, i.e. condense carbon.) I should point out that I like Freeman Dyson, but that idea is totally made up. The press gave him a pass on that because he's Freeman Dyson, but if anyone else said that you'd say "Okay, show me a carbon-eating tree. How about a uranium-eating tree to clean up nuclear waste. A PCB-eating tree for the Hudson River. Etc."

Whatfur 12-01-2009 10:36 PM

Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 140837)
People on blogs say this a lot, but it's not something that makes sense--it just sounds good on a blog. A lot of people justify energy research with a climate change rationale (yes, me included), but it is not something that relies on a deep reading of the computer models in question. Incidentally, the same research is often justified in the same breath from a military, health, or national security point of view. (Our stated goal at the energy institute where I work is to decrease oil imports.)

And no one participates in conspiracies to save a particular line of research. Really. Chasing funding is what grant-writing scientists do, and they are used to having to re-tool. No one may have noticed, but the hydrogen economy and automotive fuel cells have gone out of vogue in the past 2 years. (A few years after the President was giving a hydrogen lecture during the state-of-the-union.) Lots of scientists had/have money and expertise tied up in that, and now they are having to branch out. No one perpetrated a conspiracy to lie to the world and keep their lives easy. It is what happens.

I do agree with you, however, that when an area of study becomes important enough to become hyper-political, like climate research has become, they need to take special precautions to keep everything looking squeaky clean, and people with critical views have to be included (and I mean scientists in the field with PhD's, not companies or politicians or laymen).

Unfortunately, hyper-political hyper-scrutiny is not good for science. It hardens opinions, and steals away the fluidity that science requires. Mostly I feel sorry for the people who work in that field and have to put up with having their every word choice ('trick' etc) combed over by an army of people who aren't interested in advancing science at all.

But maybe they like it. The scrutiny. I really don't know. More power to them.

By conjoining "hyper-political hyper-scrutiny", I would have to agree. Because this research has so many implications on our lives, and the world I believe hyper-scrutiny by itself is just fine and necessary. You may or may not want to admit it but the alarmists are the ones who have been trying to shut down the debate...we now have some evidence for the reason.

Jones and Mann and their ilk may wish to advance science, but it certainly was shown that they want it on their own terms and they are not always above board. The "everybody does it" defense does not fly here.

Your statement that no one deals in conspiracy to save research is a bit far reaching. I would bet it happens every day and you cannot deny the proof there there was conspiracy here to hide data, and ignore valid input from others.

I was just in a little discussion with popcorn_karate concerning an article documenting that even the scientists don't know what currently is going on. They are just guessing and some of the guesses now being used by the "alarmist" crowd are the same ones the "denialist" crowd have been pointing to for a decade and being told they were full of it. And so it goes.

Whatfur 12-02-2009 10:02 PM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
Had a feeling John Stewart may pick this up...he didn't quite go as far as I would have liked...but still close to being on the money.

Whatfur 12-03-2009 09:34 AM

Global warming pioneer boycotting Copenhagen
 
Hmmmm. Cap and Trade IS a farce.

Ocean 12-03-2009 09:47 AM

Re: Global warming pioneer boycotting Copenhagen
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 141082)
Hmmmm. Cap and Trade IS a farce.

So, you agree with him that the planet is in imminent danger due to climate change, and that the best course of action is instituting a carbon tax. Right?

Whatfur 12-03-2009 09:59 AM

Re: Global warming pioneer boycotting Copenhagen
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 141083)
So, you agree with him that the planet is in imminent danger due to climate change, and that the best course of action is instituting a carbon tax. Right?

No, I agree with him that nothing positive will come out of Copenhagen and that Crap and Tax legislation does nothing it advertises.

Whatfur 12-03-2009 11:24 AM

Did you see where Jone's stepped down?
 
Its all unravelling.

Whatfur 12-03-2009 11:53 AM

Unravelling
 
Not a surprise but India says shove it.

Whatfur 12-03-2009 10:03 PM

Gore Bails
 
No music...no coming to face it.

Whatfur 12-04-2009 12:48 PM

UN wants to probe Climategate
 
Unbelievable, the U.N. has some questions too?

Whatfur 12-04-2009 05:24 PM

CO2 You Say.
 
C02 weigh stations next to volcanos...it just keeps getting better and better.


...and a bit of irony.

Whatfur 12-04-2009 06:58 PM

MSM still not warming to Climategate story
 
Day 14 and counting.

Whatfur 12-04-2009 07:47 PM

But the Danes might be....
 
Climate debate derailed?

bjkeefe 12-04-2009 09:24 PM

Re: 'fur's oars: still out of the water
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 140833)
Hmmm ... links to bloviations by Kimberly Strassel, Emmett Tyrell, Ace o' Spuds (2007 CPAC Blogger of the Year! (now fallen)), Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Christopher Booker, ... a veritable Who's Who of "Conservative Opinions Outweigh Science!!!1!"

You're good to have started this new thread out of concern for Orr, though -- he would be suffering stitches in his side from laughter. I know I am.

And speaking of the woefully uninformed, here's a relevant tweet:

Quote:

randomphrase "This doesn't seem to be a smoking gun so much as a gun that hasn't been fired." http://is.gd/59tW3 #esr #fail
As has been said, Everybody Loves Eric Raymond.

Starwatcher162536 12-04-2009 09:52 PM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed what % of people that voted for McCain believe AGW is a real problem that needs to be dealt with, and also see what % of people that voted for Obama believe AGW is a hoax, fraud, etc.

claymisher 12-04-2009 09:59 PM

Re: 'fur's oars: still out of the water
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 141312)
And speaking of the woefully uninformed, here's a relevant tweet:



As has been said, Everybody Loves Eric Raymond.

Once at a programming conference I was at there was this horrible smell -- like feces and rotting meat put together -- that would come and go. Nobody could figure out what it was or where it was coming from. Turned out it was Eric Raymond.

Whatfur 12-04-2009 10:43 PM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 141316)
It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed what % of people that voted for McCain believe AGW is a real problem that needs to be dealt with, and also see what % of people that voted for Obama believe AGW is a hoax, fraud, etc.

It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed the % of people that voted for McCain and doubted the facts in Al Gore's Documentary and the % of people that voted for Obama who rely on it for their AGW facts. Ok...maybe it would be just as silly as your little poll of interest.

Deny what you will, the Climategate scientists were caught being more Gore-like than like scientists. Some of what it looks like they did WAS fraud (ok we can call it a "trick") and by doing so have perpetrated a hoax.

Where we are currently left with is the fact that things actually have been cooling again and they are pinning their "hopes" (Yes I said hopes...if you read the Climategate emails you would see the disappointment they expresses when their warming evaporated) on mother nature (not carbon emissions) to turn it around.

Botton line is AGW needs to continue be examined but we have been shown that things are certainly not a done deal. Wake the fuck up.

Starwatcher162536 12-05-2009 12:55 AM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
Not everything is an unbridled attack, calm the fuck down. :D

Starwatcher162536 12-05-2009 12:56 AM

AGW debunked!?!
 
Well, maybe tomorrow.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ining_code.php

Whatfur 12-05-2009 09:56 AM

Re: AGW debunked!?!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 141337)


Oh the dancing...

First, I could have stopped reading after the first sentence when this boob you found initiated his little tango with worrying about throwing out the fact that the acquisition of the emails etc was done illegally. You and I both know that if the whistle-blowing was done on something from the other side in the same manner y'all would not give a rats ass how it was obtained.

Second, this "computer programmer from New South Wales" says he debunked the debunking of computer code by showing us that: Well yeah sure there WAS/IS some fudge factored into the code but Hey look it is later commented out by a semi-colon.

Of course you and I should both be smart enough to know that the mere fact that it existed and the mere fact that the "semi-colon" could be toggled any time they wished it to is a much larger story than the existance of the toggle.

Sorry, that is as far as I bothered to read...if there are huge points made further on feel free to bring them forward.

Nice try though.

TwinSwords 12-05-2009 11:30 AM

Re: AGW debunked!?!
 
LOL. I was reading one of the wingnut sites pushing the Climategate conspiracy theory yesterday, and the author actually said, I kid you not, that "international Marxism" has stopped using the international labor movement as a stealth means to turn the West communist, and now they are using the homosexual movement.

It's hilarious how crazy they are.

And there's this, from the author Whatfur is defending:

"Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There's a hard core that's sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops. Their goals are political: trash capitalism, resurrect socialism from the dustbin of history. They're actually more like what I have elsewhere called a prospiracy, having lost their proper conspiratorial armature when KGB Department V folded up in 1992. There aren't a lot of them, but they're very, very good at co-opting others and they drive the Gaianists like sheep."

I can imagine a debate between two serious, credible sides. But we're having a debate with complete lunatics.

Whatfur 12-05-2009 12:17 PM

Re: AGW debunked!?!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 141355)
LOL. I was reading one of the wingnut sites pushing the Climategate conspiracy theory yesterday, and the author actually said, I kid you not, that "international Marxism" has stopped using the international labor movement as a stealth means to turn the West communist, and now they are using the homosexual movement.

It's hilarious how crazy they are.

And there's this, from the author Whatfur is defending:

"Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There's a hard core that's sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops. Their goals are political: trash capitalism, resurrect socialism from the dustbin of history. They're actually more like what I have elsewhere called a prospiracy, having lost their proper conspiratorial armature when KGB Department V folded up in 1992. There aren't a lot of them, but they're very, very good at co-opting others and they drive the Gaianists like sheep."

I can imagine a debate between two serious, credible sides. But we're having a debate with complete lunatics.

What author? Where am I defending him?

How can you possibly imagine a debate when "wingnut" is your chosen adjective for everything that falls outside your own limited scope of logical thought? As the debate is being compiled and lunatics are being excluded, you will be sitting with them.

Whatfur 12-05-2009 12:59 PM

Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 141336)
Not everything is an unbridled attack, calm the fuck down. :D

Not every use of "Wake the fuck up" is said without calm. :D
By the same token, you are not constantly beating back inanities from sources who have no real interest in participating in real discussion, so if I sometimes put the wrong people in the wrong camp...I apologize for it.

Starwatcher162536 12-05-2009 01:04 PM

Valid criticism of CRU
 
For those of you that want something from someone who does think Climategate is not a case of politically convenient outrage, and is not part of Whatfur's AGW is debunked every six weeks crowd, here you go.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives...ic_conduct.php

Whatfur 12-05-2009 02:03 PM

Re: Valid criticism of CRU
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 141366)
For those of you that want something from someone who does think Climategate is not a case of politically convenient outrage, and is not part of Whatfur's AGW is debunked every six weeks crowd, here you go.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives...ic_conduct.php

Pretty sure it was you who started the "AGW debunked" thread here. Find me where I said AGW is debunked. You are a lying sack of shit.

And the timing may be convenient, but the facts are not.

bjkeefe 12-05-2009 02:15 PM

Re: Valid criticism of CRU
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 141374)
Pretty sure it was you who started the "AGW debunked" thread here. Find me where I said AGW is debunked. You are a lying sack of shit.

Ooooo. Protests too much, methinks.

piscivorous 12-05-2009 02:41 PM

Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?
 
Here is a pretty good look at the "atmospheric greenhouse effect: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics the link is to the abstract of the article on the Cornell University pre print server


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.