Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
PMM
PMM
3155 posts

Edited Dec 02, 2009, 10:55
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 02, 2009, 00:50
lol you're funny. :)

I hesitate to ask, but why not?

edit, a day later: Just a bit more here. I'm not really bothered or offended by the words of Dark Magus. I've been called far worse things than a smearer on the internet. But the real point here is that people are unable or unwilling to accept they are wrong, even when the issue is of no significance, and the logic is so glaringly obvious. So when you read Dark Magus' comments about zealots (how's that for a smear by the way!), ask yourself what a zealot actually is. I don't think "Someone who's incapable of admitting they are wrong" is a million miles away.
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 02, 2009, 14:31
The reference to right wing is an implied smear, suggesting someone with generally right wing views cannot be trusted on any subject. Surely what someone says should be judged objectively on it's own merit. You referred to bloggers you said were dubious as right wing libertarian. Would their analysis be more credible if they were the opposite i.e. left wing authoritarian?? No. Agreed? If so it was a pointless observation.

The polarisation of the global warming debate into left wing/right wing is one of the most alarming aspects and you seem to be contributing. Science should not be politicised. The curious silence in the Guardian/Independent on the analysis being done on the leeked software is odd.
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Edited Dec 02, 2009, 16:32
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 02, 2009, 16:25
DarkMagus wrote:
Of those I've only read the Telegraph blog & must confess I couldn't detect any obvious political leaning in the entry. Maybe some subtle nuance that's passing me by...


Yeah, it's that subtle bit in massive letters at the top called the headline. Headlines aren't the preserve of the post writer, they're written by a subeditor at the newspaper.

"the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? "

This suggests that the idea is dead and there have been many other nails and this is the last thing that will see it buried. Such things do not exist.

Furthermore - as has been pointed out on this thread already - to suggest the leaked emails show anything about climate change not being anthropogenic is nonsense. It misrepresents the content of the leaks, and no other reason occurs to me except that they're trying to add weight to predecided perspective.

Incidentally, you display some bias yourself in using the word 'sceptic'. In scientific matters, a sceptic is someone who is still weighing the evidence. In climate change terms, the 'sceptics' have seen overwhelming evidence yet dismiss it, whilst believing all kinds of nonsense if it suits their cause. This is not scepticism. It's the kind of adherence to a position despite the evidence that we see in creationists.
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 02, 2009, 16:48
DarkMagus wrote:
The leaked code and log of the work done on the software are a disgrace to science


Most of it is deathly dull, some of the 'damning' stuff is taken out of context (the meaning if the word 'trick', for example), but that isn't the point. The point is that there is some stuff that is evidence of unscientific behaviour, and you're absolutely right that it's a disgrace.

And if these were the only scientists we relied on (or 'the world experts' as you put it), then this would be one of the most major scandals of our time.

however, it's some stuff by several scientists, of the tens of thousands around the world. Are you suggesting all of them are corrupt?

DarkMagus wrote:
One implication of the leaks is that the peer review system was corrupted.


Er no, it was that people might have been abusing it on that occasion. It doesn't invalidate the system itself at all.

Publishing in peer review allows for anyone in your field of expertise to examine what you've done. Those who can undo your findings tend to get their work a better platform, so really, it calls forth those who disagree.

DarkMagus wrote:
You suggest data hasn't been fudged.


I'm sorry if you took that implication, it's certainly not what I think. There are things in the leak that I beleive are dishonest. However, I it is the sort of crucial datanor on the sort of massive scale that people like the Telegraph blogs, Jshell and yourself are implying.

DarkMagus wrote:
In fairness there may be others producing more credible work, but after this it really need to be opened up to the same kind of scrutiny to be validated as good science.


I completely agree.

DarkMagus wrote:
I'd have thought the news that people may be fudging things would be good.


It would, if it meant what you're implying. Sadly, it doesn't.

DarkMagus wrote:
1. Do you want AGW to be real?


No.

But if, as the overwhelming evidence shows, it is, then we need to respond on the scale and with the urgency it demands.
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 02, 2009, 16:57
Oh dear. You seem to be misrepresenting me. When have I said I knew global warming was true or false? Never. I've repeatedly said I'm agnostic & in the past said I didn't think we could tell one way or another. The leaks suggest some of the world authorities don't know their arse from there elbow when it comes to maintaining & using data. They can't even reproduce their own results!!!

A recent perspective.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read#articleTabs_comments

Care to refute? I suspect the author is somewhat more expert than you or me. Or to cite another recent article, do you side with Johann Hari's latest article in the Independent?
PMM
PMM
3155 posts

Edited Dec 03, 2009, 12:12
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 03, 2009, 02:12
DarkMagus wrote:
The reference to right wing is an implied smear, suggesting someone with generally right wing views cannot be trusted on any subject.


No it isn't, any more than describing, say, Derek Hatton as "left wing."

I can imagine someone picking me up on it, and claiming that I meant that all scousers were supporters of authoritarian stalinism, but what lies in the intent of the writer, and the interpretation of the reader are two different things. Unless you're telepathic, you don't know that I meant the term in any kind of derogatory sense. You can of course, continue to assert that there is an implied smear, and I can continue to laugh at you since I know that I implied nothing of the sort.

And as far as the second bit goes, about not trusting about any subject, well, again you read far more into this than I said. Play the ball, not the man? This from the guy who's throwing slurs around like confetti? I'd trust Delingpole to provide me with insight about how to run the economy, or how the money could be made to run around faster if we removed state control. If I bothered to find out more about the guy, I might find he could be trusted to tell me about windsurfing or how to grow geraniums. Who knows.

DarkMagus wrote:
Surely what someone says should be judged objectively on it's own merit.


Of course it should not. Context is important. The source, and previous stances of the writer are clues to what the writer intends to get across just as much as the words they write.

So if Nick Griffin, writing in a private e-mail said "Muslims should be deported" you'd take it at face value, but if George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian were to say exactly the same thing, you'd read on, expecting to find some ironic twist or biting criticism further down the page.

Someone with a racist agenda, of course, might go on to selectively quote Monbiot saying that Moslems should be deported, but then somehow neglect to include the context or the rebuttal, while demanding of course that the words should be judged objectively on their own merit.

DarkMagus wrote:
You referred to bloggers you said were dubious as right wing libertarian. Would their analysis be more credible if they were the opposite i.e. left wing authoritarian?? No. Agreed? If so it was a pointless observation. [/quote]

Well yes. Of course left wing bloggers will put their own slant on things. Would their analysis be more credible? Yes/No/maybe* delete as appropriate. Depends on the blogger. See points made above. But no. It's not a pointless observation. If jshell links to a biased site, it's right that the bias should be pointed out, no?


The polarisation of the global warming debate into left wing/right wing is one of the most alarming aspects and you seem to be contr
[/quote]

And again, if by "you" you mean me, you're reading stuff that I never wrote. I was very careful to try to avoid stating a political position. That was entirely deliberate because in many ways the usual battlelines are irrelevent. The left right argument is about how the spoils should be divvied up, and traditionally, both sides come from a position that the Earth's resources are bountiful and exist to be exploited by humans.

[quote="Robert Tressell, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists"]`Of course the workers don't create the raw
s,' replied Owen.
`But I am not aware that the capitalists or the landlords do so
either. The raw materials exist in abundance in and on the earth, but they are of no use until labour has been applied to them.'[/quote]

Neither left nor right have a history of calling for a reduction in our material standard of living, as radical environmentalists are now calling for. Still, the Left tend to be more amenable to the ecological argument, because they don't adhere by faith to the idea that our economies can grow indefinately.
jshell
333 posts

Hi Guys!
Dec 03, 2009, 13:58
Hi,

Dipped out for a while as I was just told that my posting (job, not HH) here is up and I need to find myself another job in another country. So, CV up to date and allowed to go for 5 jobs out of the company's jobs broadcasts - but shedding 10% global staff!. Not really good times, but I've got ultra-thick skin so no sympathy sought or required... ;-)

So, Climategate, Warmergate, Storm in a teacup or whatever it's morphed into now!

I held back from answering Merrick's earlier post as to do so would mean, 1. having to refute his points and thereby make myself look like a 'denier', though it's an unfair word to use. and
2. mean me having to trawl through reams of info that's not my expertise and then have to take another broadside from Merrick and we'd enter into a vicious circle with apparent entrenched positions - not where I wanted to be at the moment.

PMM did mention me citing earlier Right Wing blogs. I did. I did because that 'pigeon-holed' 'side' of the media were the only ones actually reporting this thing. I've been watching the BBC, who are implicated in the e-mails through Richard Black, and the BBC have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to cover this up...Masses and masses of pro-MMGW stuff and nothing on the Leak, except to say there's a leak. The whole mainstream media have adopted entrenched views...

However, to balance the right wing blog stuff, I give you the Left Wing blogger Monbiot to counter that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

If Monbiot's back-tracking, then there's something credible here.

Right, anyway, I don't want to get into a circular argument, it's being done ALL over the Interweb and quite frankly getting to nothing but a 'Somme' type attitude in most of the entrenched positions.

So, what's happening? Without saying I believe or disbelieve, I think we're getting somewhere now. Every story has 2 sides, and particularly this one. It's obvious from the e-mails and Harry's text that things are not rosy in the accepted science. The Peer-review process was cherry-picked and the data has been 'fudged', that's out there to see now. Does it prove or disprove global warming, no it does neither really. The CRU data was one of the corenerstones of global climate science, that stone is shaky now, and as a Massive % of global work and the IPCC themselves depend on that cornerstone, then it's ALL a bit shaky.

It's interesting as a subject on it's own, that if you follow global temperatures v's atmospheric CO2, that CO2 follows temp, not temp following CO2. To explain that huge discrepancy, there're all sorts of theories as to how it 'proves', - stalemate yet again!

It's obvious that there are enough people who don't believe the 'science' to be credible, they think, and I can see their point that this is the latest population-control 'scare tactic'. We've had Nukes, communism, AIDS, terrorism, bird flu, swine flu, more terrorism etc, etc, et-fucking-c. Do you trust our Govt and the un-elected European govt? I fucking don't. There are $$$billions at stake here.

So, what's for the future, well:

- We need some independant reviews for a start. Some folks will discounts ex-Chancellor Lawson's move for this based on his politics and history of strong scepticism, of course.
- Others will discount the UK Govt's move, as the guy behind that has a very dubious past and is a believer of true 'Zealotry' levels.
- Even NASA are now being taken to court over failure to follow FOI, that's very serious in the 'States'.
- The Aussies are voting down a Carbon bill that would cripple some of their industries.
- The Russians wonder WTF is going on coz they're predicting a cooling trend and can't comprehend what we're up to.


It's all gone global and that can only be a good thing for all concerned as if we clear the air, then perhaps we can move forwards in a productive fashion.

There's never been a true, unbiased 'concensus' view, in my view. There's been precious few 'models', and the models that support MMGW are the ones that have got funding of $000,000,000's, unbelievable numbers in fact. That's gotta skew things towards getting more funding, at least. So, we need to see the data, oh it's been dumped, so we do need to go back and re-run the modelling with everyone involved this time!
jshell
333 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 03, 2009, 14:01
DarkMagus wrote:
Hey jshell, I hope you're wearing asbestos. Suggesting the emperor is naked doesn't go down well in these parts!!


Howdy! Nomex boiler suit, cleaned and ready for action.... :-)
DarkMagus
170 posts

Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 03, 2009, 15:55
Interesting how absolutely no-one has actually refuted anything regarding the code & Harry Read Me file. Just the same old same old CO2 blah blah, right wing blah blah, peer review blah blah.

Open source all the computer models & source data I say - from all "researchers". See what's behind the curtain.
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Edited Dec 04, 2009, 01:10
Re: Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Dec 04, 2009, 00:50
DarkMagus wrote:
Oh dear. You seem to be misrepresenting me.


Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

DarkMagus wrote:
When have I said I knew global warming was true or false? Never.


Which is why I didn't say that you had. Colour me misrepresented.

What I did say was:

- there was a clear bias in the Telegraph report you said wasn't biased

- it exaggerates and misrepresents the leaked emails to say they disprove anthropogenic global warming

- that using 'sceptic' for a scientific field like this is also a bias.

The bias of these three things is the bias of the deniers.

DarkMagus wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read#articleTabs_comments

Care to refute? I suspect the author is somewhat more expert than you or me.


i have no doubt that he does. Richard Lindzen (careful always to point out that his research has never been fossil-funded, deftly ignoring the other work that has) is one of the very few people who have relevant expertise and yet doubts anthropogenic climate change.

His grounds for doing so have remained unaltered by the new data of the last 15 years. It's technical stuff to be sure, but other scientists have explained his flaws over at sites like Real Climate.

Similarly, there is a small but vocal minority of scientists, including one or two with relevant expertise, who refute evolution and believe in Creationism. Do you feel the same way about that too? Or about tobacco and cancer? Or HIV and AIDS?

When you've got tens of thousands of them on one side, backed by the Academies of Science of dozens of countries, and two or three individuals on another, I know where I'm placing my trust.

What would it take for you to do the same?
Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index