|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| If it is occuring, it's occuring despite any actions taken by corrupt scientists eager to prove it and make their careers... |
Fox, between Nature and between our take on what Nature is and what is going on in Nature, lie such groups of scientists and knowledge-producers as these.
You ought to take that into consideration before so casually dismissing the importance of this still-breaking story.
Also, why are you ignoring the implications of their clearly-visible pattern of behavior re: publications? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| If it is occuring, it's occuring despite any actions taken by corrupt scientists eager to prove it and make their careers... |
Fox, between Nature and between our take on what Nature is and what is going on in Nature, lie such groups of scientists and knowledge-producers as these. |
I agree. They exist on both sides of the debate, and it's important they're exposed where ever possible. My point is that human corruption doesn't dictate reality; even if these individuals are corrupt, it doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming any more than corruption among the scientists who take money from status-quo interests to try to disprove anthropogenic global warming prove it's happening.
| Gopher wrote: |
| You ought to take that into consideration before so casually dismissing the importance of this still-breaking story. |
I don't casually dismiss the story, I just acknowledge it for what it is: a story about some men rather than a story about the climate. Obviously, it may mean we can't trust them as individuals, but it's hardly the death-knell of anthropogenic global warming certain people would like to make it out to be.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Also, why are you ignoring the implications of their clearly-visible pattern of behavior re: publications? |
I'm not. I just recognize their actions don't impact the truth of the matter. I think I've made it very clear I'm uncertain regarding climate change, and that I feel it will take decades (at least) of study to come to the truth on the matter. These men behaving in a disingenuous fashion doesn't prove or disprove anything except that they as individuals are disingenuous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Great Wall of Whiner
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Middle Land
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it's all a 'scam', then maybe you can explain why all your 'sources' of information are dubious at best. Blogs, etc.?
Please, some mainstream sources. Please, some verifiable sources of information, not some 'conspiracy theory' blogs with little actually factual information.
You will never convince intelligent, educated people without proof and facts.
Never. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hamlet
Joined: 18 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bloggers allege that an e-mail from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, suggests that reality contradicts scientific claims about global warming:
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low�.
The fact is that we can�t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can�t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he�s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article � An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) � actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.
�It says we don�t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures � including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators � that global warming is continuing,� he says.
Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA�s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.
�There�s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,� he told Threat Level. �There�s no funding by nefarious groups. There�s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There�s nothing hidden, no manipulation.
�It�s just scientists talking about science, and they�re talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.�
Trenberth agrees.
�If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists,� he says. �The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.�
This post was updated with comments from the Climate Research Unit and Michael Mann.
Photo courtesy NASA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ropebreezy
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox: please enlighten me. How did you get direct access to the Truth of the Matter and independently verify global-warming theory on your own?
Whiner: someone did link a Wall Street Journal article a page or so ago. And I confirmed myself that CRU was running on an emergency server this morning. Go to their website yourself. It is not entirely clear what the exact story is yet; people still need to verify authenticity of each email, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change...
At first, said Dr. [Patrick J.] Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as "just the way scientists talk."
But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.
He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. "This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people�s reputations in very serious ways," he said... |
New York Times
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:06 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox: please enlighten me. How did you get direct access to the Truth of the Matter and independently verify global-warming theory on your own? |
| Fox From My DIRECTLY PREVIOUS POST wrote: |
| I think I've made it very clear I'm uncertain regarding climate change, and that I feel it will take decades (at least) of study to come to the truth on the matter. |
I don't have the truth. I don't claim to have the truth. My stance is that we don't know, that it will take decades of study to know, and until we do know we should err on the side of caution, especially in light of the fact that many of the changes we should make in response to global warming (such as moving to a clean energy economy, or drastically improving fuel efficiency) should probably be instituted even if global warming isn't occuring. These are good investments to be making even if climate change isn't occuring, and vital investments if it is.
Regardless of what that truth is, though, it exists independent of corruption on either side of the debate. Corruption is still bad, and it should still be exposed where ever possible, but it doesn't prove one side of the argument or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And here is the sentence you just omitted, from the same post...
| Fox wrote: |
| I just recognize their actions don't impact the truth of the matter. |
What authorizes you to discuss "the truth of the matter?" To which truth do you refer here, Fox? How can you rely on anything people who manipulate publications have told you over the last two decades? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
And here is the sentence you just omitted, from the same post...
| Fox wrote: |
| I just recognize their actions don't impact the truth of the matter. |
What authorizes you to discuss "the truth of the matter?" To which truth do you refer here, Fox? |
The statement you quoted is boarderline tautological. Of course the truth of the matter is independent of their actions. If global warming is occuring, it's occuring despite their corrupt actions. If global warming isn't occuring, it's not occuring despite their corrupt actions. I said it in response to the people acting as if the truth of this matter were somehow related to the integrity of the people investigating it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From Kos (a blog):
| Quote: |
| The "Mike" is Michael Mann, "hide" means to account for (See also this comment), and the trick referred to is how to resolve a question involving two sets of data. One set is the "real" actual temperature readings, the other is by proxy, tree-rings, corals, ice cores and the like. |
Ok. Tree rings and the like.
Would those be the tree rings they were caught cherry-picking a few months back?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/
Ah, yes it would.
DIsbell
| Quote: |
| that Kos link is nice. |
Because they're using past fraud as a defense for other past fraud? That is nice, though not in the way you want.
| Quote: |
| I think we're seeing a lot of initial shock just because of the language used in the emails... the reality may not be so insidious, as shown in regard to the Nature trick. |
The trick of using cherry-picked samples from trees?
| Quote: |
| I also like how mises (a die-hard capitalist) |
Ahh, you saw the memo:
Mann (of Mann-made global warming) said:
| Quote: |
| So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. |
They're sucking from governments by fabricating evidence. Yes. I have a problem with that.
| Quote: |
| is trying to inspire some proletarian rage toward the lifestyle of a few yuppie scientists. c'mon man, they're hardly the only profession that makes low 6 figures and gets to fly places frequently. |
This is stupid ^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox, everything you think you know about antropogenic global-warming theory derives from these guys' research and their suppression of others' research. And the truth of the matter is that that fact pattern ought to raise red flags and ring your bell, although inexplicably it does not. Whatever, Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Fox, everything you think you know about antropogenic global-warming theory ... |
It's a good thing I don't think I -- or any of us -- know very much about it then, isn't it?
| Gopher wrote: |
| And the truth of the matter is that that fact pattern ought to raise red flags and ring your bell, although inexplicably it does not. |
It does raise red flags with me, just like the opposition researching being funded by dirty-energy special interests raises red flags with me. Which is why I don't trust either group and feel the issue is unresolved. But because the Republican way is, "With us or against us," and I'm not with you, I'm against you, and you respond accordingly. There's no room for cautious uncertainty in your world view, and a condemnation of the scientists in question isn't nearly enough for you. If I'm not willing to summarily judge anthropogenic global warming an obvious lie because of the actions of a few men, I'm the enemy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wrong. Try again. I am not the W. Bush administration, Fox. I am not your nemesis Fox News, either. Pick another red herring/strawman, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Wrong. Try again. I am not the W. Bush administration, Fox. I am not your nemesis Fox News, either. Pick another red herring/strawman, please. |
Okay, I will try again. Is anthropogenic global warming occuring, yes or no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
