FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Climate Change





loonix
From what I understand, reading the Nazi-esque sticky at the top of this board...

I cannot talk about climate change unless I regurgitate the main stream thesis?

I searched for reference on this board to the situation regarding the leaked emails from the Climate Research Institute, no mention? Really? Someone must have discussed them someplace around here?

Anyway, policy or otherwise it would seem that a voice questioning the official stance is not welcome here? All the more reason to hang around IMO.
Ankhanu
Questioning is fine.. just have some science to back your stance up, otherwise it's just speculation.
Bikerman
The CRU emails have been fully investigated - three times
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/independentreviews

Since this is a science forum then contributions should certainly be about or containing science, not opinion. There are plenty of forums where climate sceptics can post uninformed opinion. If climate sceptics wish to post INFORMED opinion, with due support/evidence, then they are most welcome to do so.
loonix
So the emails have not been discussed on this Forum?

Strange as I would consider the emails as a factual point of data?
Bikerman
The science forums here are relatively new in this format and I can't honestly remember if the change was before or after the CRU 'scandal'.
If anyone wanted to raise the matter then I would have been happy to respond. The reason I didn't raise it here is because I have discussed it at length in another place, and that discussion involved people with first hand knowledge of the CRU and its work.
If you want to discuss the CDU emails then go ahead. Personally I don't see what is left to say.
loonix
Fair enough, maybe there are others lurking around here that are interested in such material =)
Bikerman
It was news for a while because it played to the sceptic message (or more accurately, was made to appear to do so). In fact there was nothing dodgy about the emails. The only thing that Jones and his team did wrong was get angry with someone who was interrupting them with nuisance requests, and write stupid imaginings about how they could get even. That sort of email can be found in any organisation with more than a few people working in it - it's just banter and testosterone mixing in an unfortunate way. The only other thing that the jubilant sceptics were able to point to was the use of the word 'trick' to describe a mathematical technique applied to data. Taken out of context, the quote looks like it is advocating fiddling the data to get rid of an anomolous section. When seen in the true context it was nothing of the sort. The word 'trick' is often used to apply to a mathematical or statistical operation, and several independant scientists have verified that what Jones and team actually did was not just OK, it was good science.
yagnyavalkya
Climate change is an interesting topic.
Ankhanu
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Climate change is an interesting topic.


This sort of reply, given the frequency with which you make them, are practically trolling, imo.
It's something of a piss off to "contribute" to a topic without actually making any kind of contribution. This has added nothing to the thread narrative. Please stop.
Bikerman
I'm afraid I'm tending to that opinion myself. Yagnyavalkya - you are supposed to be an academic, you must know that this sort of one line posting is both irritating and of little value.
yagnyavalkya
Firstly the emails where obtained by hacking
The emails were selectively published and where possibly taken out of context, may be even distorted and most importantly did not help in a discussion on the issue of climate change it was actually mischievous
here is the link of the article on this issue written by Kevin E Trenberth http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v3.pdf
The role of media is important here
I read an interesting article published in 2005 which says some press reports perpetuate the myth of a lack of international scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change—and thereby succeed in maintaining public confusion.
In another article published recently on the public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change
the authors say that Climate scepticism was found to be particularly common among individuals who are politically conservative and hold traditional values; while less common among individuals who hold self-transcendence and environmental values.
Bikerman
That's more like it Smile
I am deeply suspicious of this phrase 'self-transcendence'. It appears to me to be the sort of thing that woo-woo merchants say, as well as being an oxymoron.*

I do agree with the main point, however, that climate sceptics frequently resort to distortion, misrepresentation and just plain old lying.
If I had to make a comparison, it would be with Christian fundamentalism. Both groups are immune to evidence, convinced of their own rectitude (a conviction based on personal 'revalation' not empirical evidence), and are sure that people who do not share their beliefs are both wrong and somehow 'lesser' than they are (climate sceptics, for example, frequently make claims that require the majority of the world's climate scientists to be either engaged in a giant conspiracy or completely incompetent).

* If 'I' am 'myself' then it follows that 'I' cannot 'transcend' myself, because anything I do or think IS myself.
yagnyavalkya
Bikerman wrote:

I am deeply suspicious of this phrase 'self-transcendence'. It appears to me to be the sort of thing that woo-woo merchants say, as well as being an oxymoron.*


* If 'I' am 'myself' then it follows that 'I' cannot 'transcend' myself, because anything I do or think IS myself.

I think we can say -Open mind or not with a closed mind
Bikerman
That would be better methinks.
Better yet - without prejudement. It isn't so much that these people are not open to persuasion - many people are not. It is that they are not open to persuasion BECAUSE they have already arrived at a judgement and they will not change it - either for socio-economic reasons or for reasons of ego/personality.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
and are sure that people who do not share their beliefs are both wrong and somehow 'lesser' than they are

To be fair, that could be said of a great many groups...

Dare I say, even atheists and climate change advocates may be guilty of it at times?
Bikerman
I'm certainly guilty to some extent but I would claim a difference. I would not do so from a faith position (ie I would not dismiss or look down on someone just because they did not share my faith position on something). If someone doesn't accept what is clearly true, for whatever reason, then yes, I tend to regard them as either dishonest, stupid, very ignorant or brainwashed.

I DO look at creationists and similar zealots as 'different' - ie I will treat them differently BECAUSE of that knowledge than I would without it. I hope that I don't do that with other people - I try not to - but with creationists it is a learned response rather than simple prejudice. I have been misquoted and misrepresented so many times by creationists, and have seen scientists and others also misrepresented, that I think it is not only reasonable but actually necessary to treat any creationist as dishonest unless I have good evidence to the contrary.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
I'm certainly guilty to some extent but I would claim a difference. I would not do so from a faith position (ie I would not dismiss or look down on someone just because they did not share my faith position on something). If someone doesn't accept what is clearly true, for whatever reason, then yes, I tend to regard them as either dishonest, stupid, very ignorant or brainwashed.

I DO look at creationists and similar zealots as 'different' - ie I will treat them differently BECAUSE of that knowledge than I would without it. I hope that I don't do that with other people - I try not to - but with creationists it is a learned response rather than simple prejudice. I have been misquoted and misrepresented so many times by creationists, and have seen scientists and others also misrepresented, that I think it is not only reasonable but actually necessary to treat any creationist as dishonest unless I have good evidence to the contrary.

But creationists and their ilk certainly deserve all the ire they get. Everyone - you and me included - initially grants them the same respect we grant to any other person discussing science. Then they blow it, and lose that respect by virtue of dishonest quote-mining, crappy scientific methodology and general cluelessness about the nature of science. i mean, i gave even Micheal Behe some credibility until Dover; now i think my brother's dog is a better scientist than he is - at least she knows that if she wants to find something out, she has to dig a little. Same with Dembski - dude's got three PhD's, so i thought he must be pretty smart... then i read him, and saw what he teaches in his classes, and now i think i've curiously shaped rocks that are smarter than Dembski. That's not prejudice, that's "postjudice"; those people earned every bit of the disdain and scorn heaped on them.

Climate change denial is the same thing. That ship has sailed - now every single major scientific organization in the world is admitting it's happening. Used to be i would say every single one except the American Petroleum Geologists... but now even they are on board with it! i looked over all the "smoking gun" emails... the worst thing i saw was a couple of the experts discussing - in frustration, not even seriously - how much they'd like to humiliate a climate change denier, and prevent his stuff from being published. That was it. They didn't even make any plans; they just basically said that they wish they could do it. That was the worst thing they could find in those emails (besides the comment referring to some statistical method as a trick*).

We've all looked over the case of the emails, and we've all heard the same crap science put out by the Heartland Institute et al. We're all fully justified in not giving the same respect to climate change deniers - and again, that's not prejudice; they've earned it. Now, if someone wants to make a solid case against climate change, they're welcome to... but i think they should realize the scummy company they will be keeping when they do, and make a doubly-concerted effort to make their case clear, solid, and scientific, not just more of the usual insinuation, character assassination and argument from bad association. i don't see that as unfair or prejudicial any more than i see demanding that someone trying to disprove the first law of thermodynamics come good, solid and hard with their presentation is unfair or prejudicial. The field of climate change is known - proven - to be rife with bad science and scammers... only a fool would not be wary when dealing with it now.

* Actually, i think i have to correct Bikerman on some details here. It's been a couple years, so the memory of the incident is a bit hazy, but if i recall, when professional statisticians looked over the work, it was not correct. The mathematicians said that the method the climate change people had used was correct, but not the correct one for that type of data (i honestly can't remember exactly what the problem was, or even if i ever knew, but i remember someone saying that it was about on the same level of error as being off by one or two on the number of degrees of freedom - which, with ten thousand data points, means next to nothing). They went on to explain that it was a very tricky technical distinction, and it's a subtle mistake most scientists make, across fields. Then they re-analyzed the data with the right statistical tool, and republished. The difference in the results so small it was not visible when the graphs were compared side-by-side - it was really just a subtle technical error.
yagnyavalkya
Here is some news that might of interest
There is a jouranl called "Remote Sensing" (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing)
The journal's aim and scope "is all aspects of the remote sensing process, from instrument design and signal processing to the retrieval of geophysical parameters and their application in geosciences'
The journal published a paper called " “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3 , 1603-1613" it is open access and is available on the journals site.
The authors of the paper claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.
The journals editor says that there was there were no errors with the review process.
The editor also says that the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate skeptic notions of the authors
BBC news says that it was It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists. The editor has resigned due this controversy (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/)
gverutes
Just read the Weather Makers by Tim Flannery -- published in 2005. REALLY GOOD READ!
Related topics
Help Predict Climate Change
British Prime Minister Blames Floods on Climate Change
Climate change escalates Darfur crisis
Wolfowitz 'tried to censor World Bank on climate change'
Climate Change Bigwigs Tell Congress about Fudged Science
Many religious leaders back climate-change action
Climate Change/Global Warming
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef - Dealing with Climate Change
expose of Climate Change Denial lies
Education on Climate Change
Bush censored climate change report. Obama releases it.
Climate change
Climate change and politics
Advice for the IPCC climate change panel, from a contributor
House GOP unanimously denies reality re climate change
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.