|
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 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:13 pm Post subject: University of Pennsylvania in on Global Warming Conspiracy |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
One of the scientists at the centre of the 'climategate' email scandal has been cleared of any wrongdoing, and had allegations of manipulating and hiding data dismissed.
Pennsylvania State University conducted an inquiry into Dr Michael Mann, a climatologist working for their Department of Meteorology, after a series of emails were leaked as proof scientists were manipulating data to push the case of human induced climate change.
Dr Mann was cleared of all allegations of misconduct, with one caveat. In relation to the allegation of deviating from accepted practices, while there was no evidence of his work falling outside of accepted scientific practice, the public nature of the leak and fears it may undermine trust in science mean further investigation was needed.
The University looked through all of Dr Mann's email correspondences in making its findings.
Central to the claims Dr Mann manipulated and withheld data was the use of the word 'trick' in an email exchange discussing a graph to be presented in a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report.
In the inquiry the University found the contrary to claims of falsification, the scientists involved were merely trying to explain data.
"In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a 'trick' to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr Jones and others including Dr Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report," the inquiry said.
"They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field.
"The so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
Professor Roger Jones for, Victoria Uni's Centre for Strategic Economic Studies says the report clears Dr Mann of any wrongdoing.
"Essentially what it shows is that there was no material evidence that Michael Mann had actually done any of those things, which was suppressing for falsifying data, deleting or concealing emails, and the misuse of privileged or confidential information, and they found that there was no evidence of that either," he said.
Professor Jones says while the scandal damaged public perception in the science of human induced climate changes, reviews like this are important to regain trust.
"We do have to maintain as much public confidence in the science as we can," he said.
"And if it comes to these sorts of unfortunate events where you get a whole heap of emails stolen you certainly have to have a close inquiry to try and maintain and restore that confidence if it's been eroded."
He says the scandal also shows the disconnect between the scientific consensus and the media debate on climate change.
"What we have is this situation where the overwhelming majority of the climate science community has got one view of the science, and there are a very small group of scientists, most of the time they're actually not practising in the climate area themselves, [who disagree]," he said.
"And the when you get into the media the mix is more like 50-50, so the public can get the view that there's actually a real debate going on here whereas while there is one in the media, in the science there isn't actually that much of a material debate." |
As usual, I'm sure anyone attempting to exhonerate these individuals will simply be considered in on the conspiracy. Only conservative bloggers with a openly stated anti-AGW bias can truly be trusted to inform us on this topic. After all, it's simply not possible that casually used language in private emails could mean exactly what they said it meant, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You forgot to use the rolly eyes.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bad news. Texas' state climatologist John Nielson-Gammon -- despite being in the hire of a state government which is openly hostile to the idea of climate change -- is in on the conspiracy too.
The entire case against the AGW scientists is starting to seem really, really hollow. "They said some mildly suspicious sounding things in a a few private emails written years ago!" Actual experts who have examined this seem content with their explanation, and using the word "trick" isn't particularly condemning anyway. "One of the climatologists went on wikipedia and altered and produced many articles!" It's not shocking at all that an expert in a given field would spend time working with the wikipedia articles in his field, and I've yet to see any evidence that a single change he made was wrong or unethical. All we have are numbers; only a person presupposing malfeasance would see malfeasance there. "They're using the peer review process to supress dissent!" The entire point of the peer review process is to filter out bad science; any complaint about how the peer review process has operated on this topic again presupposes anti-AGW rhetoric is correct, since if it's incorrect of course it wouldn't pass peer review. "There's been a lot of snow this year!" Come the *beep* on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Bad news. Texas' state climatologist John Nielson-Gammon -- despite being in the hire of a state government which is openly hostile to the idea of climate change -- is in on the conspiracy too.
The entire case against the AGW scientists is starting to seem really, really hollow. ". |
Except the AGW scientists' own computer guy basically said their models were garbage.
I've posted the link to this several times before...would you like it again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Bad news. Texas' state climatologist John Nielson-Gammon -- despite being in the hire of a state government which is openly hostile to the idea of climate change -- is in on the conspiracy too.
The entire case against the AGW scientists is starting to seem really, really hollow. ". |
Except the AGW scientists' own computer guy basically said their models were garbage.
I've posted the link to this several times before...would you like it again? |
Which still doesn't prove anything except that perhaps the raw data would best be fed through new, better computer models. Anti-AGW folks are like Creationists trying to prove their cases by picking at Evolution in any way they can. Any anti-AGW scientists who begin gathering and building their own body of data and producing solid, scientific proof against AGW is worthy of a lot of respect, whether he's right or wrong. Such individuals aren't exactly common, are they? No, the primary force opposing AGW isn't science, it's political conservativism, because AGW -- if it's true -- represents a great threat to conservative ideals.
I've all ready said I think the AGW people need to improve themselves and take a slower, more deliberate, more long term approach to this problem. That doesn't make the anti-AGW individuals who are a priori assuming AGW is false are any less foolish. And yes, that's ultimately what you're doing when your case against AGW is represented by a few emails, some quotations from a computer worker, some wikipedia alterations, and some snow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Bad news. Texas' state climatologist John Nielson-Gammon -- despite being in the hire of a state government which is openly hostile to the idea of climate change -- is in on the conspiracy too.
The entire case against the AGW scientists is starting to seem really, really hollow. ". |
Except the AGW scientists' own computer guy basically said their models were garbage.
I've posted the link to this several times before...would you like it again? |
Which still doesn't prove anything except that perhaps the raw data would best be fed through new, better computer models. Anti-AGW folks are like Creationists trying to prove their cases by picking at Evolution in any way they can. Any anti-AGW scientists who begin gathering and building their own body of data and producing solid, scientific proof against AGW is worthy of a lot of respect, whether he's right or wrong. Such individuals aren't exactly common, are they? No, the primary force opposing AGW isn't science, it's political conservativism, because AGW -- if it's true -- represents a great threat to conservative ideals.
. |
Well the primary force behind AGW isn't science either. If it were it would have been able to refute all these allegations. What we have is guesswork and projections which were often backed by little science or none at all. Like those Himalayan glaciers which were supposed to melt in the next 20-30 years or so...and then it was discovered that they weren't going to melt for at least another 200 years or thereabouts (assuming the science was correct to begin with).
Much of what we do have is questionable. And these "some quotations from a computer worker" is dramatically understating the case. It pretty much covered all the entire relevant data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Well the primary force behind AGW isn't science either. |
Perhaps not in political circles, but it's yet to be proven that this is the case among scientific circles.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| If it were it would have been able to refute all these allegations. |
The allegations that matter have largely been refuted by scientists who have investigated them; there's a reason "climategate" has devolved into a soundbyte rather than expanding into a deathblow to AGW. There's a reason scientists are still largely standing by it. There's a reason institutions like the University in question are clearing these men of the accusations in question. But none of that matters to people who a priori believed AGW was all a lie from day one. That's why the stronghold of anti-AGW thought is still conservative bloggers, Fox News, and Republican politicians rather than the scientific community at large.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| What we have is guesswork and projections which were often backed by little science or none at all. |
It's backed by science insofar as there's at least some data that's been collected which seems to be supportive of it, but I agree it's insufficient to make a compelling case. Unfortunately, the day-one deniers have made it very hard to take a slow, methodological approach. When you have the entire conservative media screaming rubbish like, "It snowed a lot this winter, warming is a lie!" it's very hard to compete on the PR field with genuine science alone. A lot of AGW proponents have fallen into the trap of responding in kind with exaggerated claims, unfortunately, and I don't support them for that. That doesn't make you right, however. You might care to claim the science backing AGW is weak and as of yet unfleshed out, but the science of AGW denial is nonexistent; it's pure politically-driven faith.
As long as conservatives keep denying AGW in an a priori fashion, they have no intellectual leg to stand on. Anti-AGW needs to start fielding some serious scientific study of its own if it's to be taken seriously. There's a strong possibility the threats of AGW have been massively over-stated, and if this is so, the sooner we find out, the better. Yet the politicos who rail against AGW seem decidedly uninterested in this. Wonder why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Well the primary force behind AGW isn't science either. |
Perhaps not in political circles, but it's yet to be proven that this is the case among scientific circles.
. |
When the science is corrupted by the deliberate exclusion of data that does not support a pre-determined conclusion one has to wonder just how much weight one should attach to these "scientific circles"
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/03/global_warming_update
As I said before the science needs to be re-done with some serious oversight on the methodologies used and the data collection and compilation. Until that is done AGW remains suspect.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Well the primary force behind AGW isn't science either. |
Perhaps not in political circles, but it's yet to be proven that this is the case among scientific circles.
. |
When the science is corrupted by the deliberate exclusion of data that does not support a pre-determined conclusion one has to wonder just how much weight one should attach to these "scientific circles"
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/03/global_warming_update |
More weight than should be attached to openly and purely political conservative bloggers, politicians, and business interests, which again is the primary source of anti-AGW thought. Dismiss the scientific community as you wish. I for one am prepared to give them more time to make their case, and I'm willing to give any opponent of AGW who uses the scientific method just as much time to make theirs (assuming people start seriously trying). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Well the primary force behind AGW isn't science either. |
Perhaps not in political circles, but it's yet to be proven that this is the case among scientific circles.
. |
When the science is corrupted by the deliberate exclusion of data that does not support a pre-determined conclusion one has to wonder just how much weight one should attach to these "scientific circles"
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/02/03/global_warming_update |
More weight than should be attached to openly and purely political conservative bloggers, politicians, and business interests, which again is the primary source of anti-AGW thought. Dismiss the scientific community as you wish. I for one am prepared to give them more time to make their case, and I'm willing to give any opponent of AGW who uses the scientific method just as much time to make theirs (assuming people start seriously trying). |
I'm not dismissing the scientific community. I'm saying their work needs more oversight and transparency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I'm not dismissing the scientific community. I'm saying their work needs more oversight and transparency. |
Okay. I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:46 pm Post subject: RE: U of Pennsylvania in on Global Warming Conspiracy |
|
|
| Rethread. The only way to get to the truth about climate change is to explore the science for yourself. |
|
| 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
