The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scandalous or No? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
MAKMagic
View Profile
Special user
I got banned for one of my
555 Posts

Profile of MAKMagic
A good article by *** skeptic jerks who want us to burn burn burn like the over-consuming mean profiteering maniacs we are? Does that sound right?

I just wanted to say something I guess. Read it. It's about the "Climategate" hacking thing.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1109/tracinski112409.php3
.:Michael Kelley
<BR>www.RandomActsofEntertainment.com
On the Level, By the Square
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Better duck. This tends to be a hot discussion topic here.

I'm saddened by the state of the global climate change "debate". On one side, you have a bunch of scientists supposedly funded by green tech investors. On the other side, you've got a bunch of scientists supposedly funded by oil and coal companies. One side says we need to do what they say or everyone's going to die. The other side says if we do what the first side says, we'll be plunged into a global economic depression. Then each side pukes up a bunch of numbers, and says, "Look- my side has to be right!" Who do you believe?
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
RJE
View Profile
Inner circle
1848 Posts

Profile of RJE
Bwaaaa haaa haaa haaaa. And yet it works.
MAKMagic
View Profile
Special user
I got banned for one of my
555 Posts

Profile of MAKMagic
Quote:
On 2009-11-24 12:02, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Better duck. This tends to be a hot discussion topic here.

I'm saddened by the state of the global climate change "debate". On one side, you have a bunch of scientists supposedly funded by green tech investors. On the other side, you've got a bunch of scientists supposedly funded by oil and coal companies. One side says we need to do what they say or everyone's going to die. The other side says if we do what the first side says, we'll be plunged into a global economic depression. Then each side pukes up a bunch of numbers, and says, "Look- my side has to be right!" Who do you believe?


Exactly!
.:Michael Kelley
<BR>www.RandomActsofEntertainment.com
On the Level, By the Square
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
I find it amusing that an article lambasting scientists for supposedly "cherry picking" data to support their preconceived conclusions is in fact cherry picking data to support its preconceived conclusions.

Out of thousands of emails they find a small handful that may or may not (as they are all being taken out of context) point to bad data or the fraudulent behavior of a small handful of researchers.

So it appears that climate deniers are taking a play out of the creationists playbook. We can't prove the theory wrong with actual facts so we'll hope we can find a single flaw in the theory and then try to invalidate the entire study because of it.

This current scheme to try to invalidate climate change fails on so many levels it is laughable. We've found a couple of e-mails from disgruntled scientists! At last, the smoking gun we've all been dreaming of. Please.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2009-11-24 12:44, Payne wrote:

This current scheme to try to invalidate climate change fails on so many levels it is laughable. We've found a couple of e-mails from disgruntled scientists! At last, the smoking gun we've all been dreaming of. Please.


What's the proper context for a phrase like "hide the decline"?

"A couple of e-mails from disgruntled scientists" is laughable. The problem caused by the e-mail exposure (if and to the extent that it IS a problem) isn't from "disgruntled scientists." The disgruntled scientists come forward on their own and are dismissed as being ignorant or bought off. The problem is E-mails from concerned scientists who are still on board with the party line but having trouble explaining their findings.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
MAKMagic
View Profile
Special user
I got banned for one of my
555 Posts

Profile of MAKMagic
Right Payne, because the smoking gun of proof OF Warming oops I mean "Change" to warrent the mass hysteria and product marketing (as opposed to any solutions) is definitive or in any way concrete.

To quote..."laughable" and "please".

"climate deniers" (speaking of laughable!) Can't prove the theory wrong? LOL It's a joke. It hasn't been proven right! QUICK go buy a 35mpg tin can for $30k! Or wait, maybe by a $90k Swedish hybrid car from the (US ECONOMY BAILOUT provided $700MILLION to)company Gore sits on the board for.

Play with your hybrids and solar panels and feel righteous and smite they who dare question it!

I swear, if the Gore's out there would put effort into ACTUALLY developing new methods of energy or recycling or clean up they'd get so much more accomplished (AND make a giant profit in the long run). Quick, sucker scare every dollar out of the sheeple as quick as possible.
.:Michael Kelley
<BR>www.RandomActsofEntertainment.com
On the Level, By the Square
MAKMagic
View Profile
Special user
I got banned for one of my
555 Posts

Profile of MAKMagic
My Apologies - I'm a liar. It was only $529 million. Sorry.
.:Michael Kelley
<BR>www.RandomActsofEntertainment.com
On the Level, By the Square
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Michael,

I've made the argument before- even if you don't factor in "saving the earth", switching to green and renewable energy sources-
1) is cheaper in the long run.
2) creates jobs which cannot be outsourced. (Someone has to build and maintain the solar panels and windmills.)
3) significantly boosts our national security by reducing dependance on foreign oil.

Now if you want to argue that one side or another is using scare tactics to increase the urgency, that's fine- argue about the tactics, but the points above should be enough to warrant a push for converting to green technology.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
MAKMagic
View Profile
Special user
I got banned for one of my
555 Posts

Profile of MAKMagic
RIGHT, but putting (no pun intended) energy into REAL research and technological advancements in green and renewable energy is GOOD. Scaring everyone with an "Inconvenient Truth"...25 Hurricaines a year in the US...6000 ft above sea level etc etc etc ENDLESS death and destruction because of the evil United States and Carbon emissions.

Buying Carbon credits (that gore gets a check from). 90k hybrid SWISS cars (paid for by US TAX dollars for a company gore gets a check from!!!) electric cars (THAT USE COAL TO CHARGE!)40k solar roofs (that are not eco-friendly to create and are rediculously over priced). It's a *** scam. Our government and the UN take a part in to boot!

That effort and energy should be put forth into actual advancement in the fields instead. The 3 points you state are legit. That's not what's happening. It's a band-aid that won't fix **** very similar to the crap dirty harry is pushing through the house with health care right now.

Don't work toward a solution, instead profit by prolonging the problem.
.:Michael Kelley
<BR>www.RandomActsofEntertainment.com
On the Level, By the Square
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
You know, Al Gore addressed the fact that he invests in green tech with an argument along the lines of- "People invest in what they believe in; if I didn't invest in green technologies, those same critics would be calling me a hypocrit for not believing enough to invest in them."

Lots of people on both sides are complaining about outsourcing the hybrids to the Swiss- and also the Chinese company producing wind turbines. (Fortunately that company decided to move its factory to the US, so we're at least getting jobs out of it now.) I agree; we still use too much coal; but changing that takes time. Solar panels are starting to become vastly more efficient in production and cost; I'm now hearing ads on the radio for a company that will lease them to you for less than your current electric bill.

Don't drag health care into this debate- that's a whole other thread. But in short- politics is slow. It's supposed to be slow to keep us from making a hasty decision that turns out to be a mistake. Unfortunately, it's also frustratingly slow at times, too.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2009-11-24 13:30, LobowolfXXX wrote:

What's the proper context for a phrase like "hide the decline"?



Depends. Was this noting that someone hid the decline in their data? Was this saying that they themselves hid the decline when appraising their data? did this hidden decline make it into the final presentation? Was the hidden decline uncovered? In fact what type of decline are they talking about? There are plenty of different contexts that a rather innocuous phrase like "hide the decline" can be taken.

All the deniers are acting like this is the only lab in the whole wide world working on climate change or that it is the single repository for all known information on the subject. There is plenty of data out there showing us that the earth is getting warmer. no one doubts that. The point of contention is to whether it's man made or a natural series of events.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2009-11-24 13:40, MAKMagic wrote:

Play with your hybrids and solar panels and feel righteous and smite they who dare question it!

I swear, if the Gore's out there would put effort into ACTUALLY developing new methods of energy or recycling or clean up they'd get so much more accomplished (AND make a giant profit in the long run). Quick, sucker scare every dollar out of the sheeple as quick as possible.


Wait,in one breath your chastising us for fiddling about with hybrids and solar panels and in the next your complaining that we're not developing alternative energy sources.

So what exactly are hybrids and solar panels then?

We also seem to be working on bio-fuels, wind power, tidal power, conservation and a whole host of other solutions.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Context will determine which decline is being "hidden". Has anyone read the complete email exchanges that give the context for what decline was being hidden by what mathematical technique ("trick")? And if you haven't why do you have any opinion on the matter?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I haven't read them. I have an opinion because the excerpts that I have read, and the reactions of various parties to the story, I find to be self-explanatory.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
I haven't read them either. But there is a legitimate use of "smoothing" of data that offers no scandal whatsoever. The big questions is what "decline" is at issue and why it is being "hidden" and what "hidden" means in this context.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2009-11-24 11:37, MAKMagic wrote:
A good article by *** skeptic jerks who want us to burn burn burn like the over-consuming mean profiteering maniacs we are. ? Does that sound right?

I just wanted to say something I guess. Read it. It's about the "Climategate" hacking thing.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1109/tracinski112409.php3

Cut and pasted from the blog at the link you gave: "In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor." Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann replies: 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."

Cut and pasted comments about the paper in question that provoked this outrage:

Controversy over the 2003 Climate Research paper

In 2003, Baliunas and Astrophysicist Willie Soon published a review paper on historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[11]

Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[13]

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[14][15] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[16]
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2009-11-24 12:44, Payne wrote:
I find it amusing that an article lambasting scientists for supposedly "cherry picking" data to support their preconceived conclusions is in fact cherry picking data to support its preconceived conclusions.

Ironic and sad, but not unexpected.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2009-11-24 16:54, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I haven't read them either. But there is a legitimate use of "smoothing" of data that offers no scandal whatsoever. The big questions is what "decline" is at issue and why it is being "hidden" and what "hidden" means in this context.


Other references I've read involve ways to obstruct or evade Freedom of Information Act requests, and that Jones would rather destroy some of the Climactic Research Unit data than give it to Steven McIntyre.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Scott Cram
View Profile
Inner circle
2677 Posts

Profile of Scott Cram
Scandelous or No? Congress may be getting ready to answer just this question:

CBS News Blogs: Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails

It's also having other repercussions: Legal fallout of Climategate - CEI to sue NASA

The three main points of contention in the Climategate e-mails are:

1. The discussion of data manipulation in order to get preferred results.

2. The discussion of the subversion of the scientific peer review process, in order to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.

3. The discussion of deleting files that are subject to British FOIA requests. Deleting material subject to FOIA requests is a crime.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Scandalous or No? (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL