Jump to content

Climategate


John Costella
 Share

Recommended Posts

You're right, John: in something this large, there are winners and losers whichever way it goes -- and the potential to throw mud in both directions.

Other than the self-evident bias in the institutions that these scientists worked for -- namely, that they were funded to find evidence of climate change, not to assess honestly whether climate change was real (sounds a bit like the Warren Commission, eh?) -- there's no hint in the Climategate emails that there were any additional financial motives involved. Ideology, ego, arrogance, incompetence, elitism, obstruction, and ultimately outright fraud: yes, absolutely.

A sad day for science, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Disagreement within the Scientific community is one thing. Another is the failure of the education system over a long period of time to provide people with an understanding of how science works. As Britain looks forward to a brief cold snap, my heart sinks at the thought of this being cited as evidence that global warming is nothing to worry about.

When scientists argue fiercely even over whether there is a scientific consensus it leaves the rest of us with just scraps of anecdotal evidence to go on:

http://af.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughN...E5BA37O20091211

Aha! So it was the icecream companies ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
The central question is not the level of CO2, but what effects those levels are having on the planet.

Since CO2 is not poisonous, the key concern was its potential to warm the planet through the "greenhouse effect". We've been told about this for thirty years or more; and in theory it makes good scientific sense: by itself, CO2 would act like a "blanket".

But the real world is not just a billiard ball surrounded by at atmosphere; it's a complex system that is in a constant balance between equilibrium and change -- and highly nonlinear ones at that. No scientist can claim to know exactly how the planet would react to any given stimulus.

John

John, just to make sure I understand you. Are you claiming that a relatively even sided debate is currently taking place about whether atmospheric c02 has a warming effect on the surface of the Planet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

I wish the analysis of ballistic vests had been that easy. What you say would "make sense" to someone who didn't understand the subtleties of statistics.

The reality is that making a definitive mathematical statement about anything takes extreme care. (Stop me now before I start into a second-year lecture about hypothesis testing.)

Climate change scientists accused mankind of grave crimes against the environment. The burden of proof is on those scientists. We all thought the case was rock-solid -- assuming that the science was working in the way that it was supposed to. Instead, a bunch of incompetent cowboys cooked the books and thwarted attempts at independent verification.

The case is thrown out of court. Mankind is innocent until proven otherwise.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
The central question is not the level of CO2, but what effects those levels are having on the planet.

Since CO2 is not poisonous, the key concern was its potential to warm the planet through the "greenhouse effect". We've been told about this for thirty years or more; and in theory it makes good scientific sense: by itself, CO2 would act like a "blanket".

But the real world is not just a billiard ball surrounded by at atmosphere; it's a complex system that is in a constant balance between equilibrium and change -- and highly nonlinear ones at that. No scientist can claim to know exactly how the planet would react to any given stimulus.

John

John, just to make sure I understand you. Are you claiming that a relatively even sided debate is currently taking place about whether atmospheric c02 has a warming effect on the surface of the Planet?

Don't like quoting myself, but an answer would be nice John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, mate; I didn't see a notification for this one. Didn't ignore you on purpose!

Even-sided? Absolutely not. Today we have every political leader in the free world meeting in Copenhagen, all arguing that the scientific debate is over. That's just slightly lopsided!

I don't blame the politicians. They rely on advisors, who rely on their science geeks. And the science geeks have to look at the IPCC, and conclude that all due diligence must have been performed, and the answers must therefore be unequivocal.

Very few would have known that there was something rotten in the State of Denmark.

You need to realise that this sort of event -- massive incompetence on an issue of global importance, covered up by means of dishonest exclusion of critics and outright fraud -- is unprecedented in the history of science.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Gillespie
As with all of these scare tactics (global warming, swine flu, terrorism, etc) the first

question to ask is WHO BENEFITS?

When you find that answer, it will solve 90 percent of "scares".

Follow the money.

Jack

__________________________

Hi Jack,

I missed the "Conspiracy Theory" show with Jesse Ventura last night. Perhaps I can catch up on Youtube. But a colleague told me today that there will be a 'bank' set up to collect and distribute revenue acquired once the so-called climate change taxes are implemented worldwide. I told the colleague that they simply will make that a section of the World Bank, by any other name. But the news is that this Copenhagen conference is THE crossing of that very blurry and wind-blown line in the sand that many people thought would never be approached, towards world government. Their heads are in that sand.

Have A Good Time For The Holidays,

JG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish the analysis of ballistic vests had been that easy.

Out of curiosity, was this the CCA200?

Ha -- now you've got me wracking my brain to figure out which details of my report are UNCLASS.

The fact that I did the analysis and wrote the report was definitely UNCLASS, as is the title of the report. But I'm not sure that the types of vest were part of the title, so I'll have to refrain from answering that question.

Sorry :)

(But I swear that it has no impact on global warming ...) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problems. I just have a history with the CCA200 and trying to get our items codified. *sigh* A prime example of bureaucracy gone mad.

You know that my response to that must be an empty string. :) (Even 'no comment' violates the rules ...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...