Climategate?

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

has anybody got a chart for global CO2 concentrations for the last 30 years or so??

The Keeling Curve is still the standard, as far as I know (open to correction).

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

The Keeling Curve is still the standard, as far as I know (open to correction).

While CO2 levels in the atmosphere are charted in linear fashion (because it is increasing that way) it presents the viewer with a more alarming image.

The effect CO2 has on warming for instance is a logarithmic one!

Example:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Logarithm.html

PatHawkins

Clive James is on the ball,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6vln/A_Point_of_View_11_12_2009/

SLUSK

This is how the IPCC deals with journalists asking tough questions. A journalists ask Stanford's professor Stephen Schneider som tough questions about the leaked emails. They use security guards to throw the journalist out so he does not have to answer these tough questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded

Why are the people in the IPCC acting like this if they have nothing to hide?

auerillo

SLUSK wrote: »

This is how the IPCC deals with journalists asking tough questions. A journalists ask Stanford's professor Stephen Schneider som tough questions about the leaked emails. They use security guards to throw the journalist out so he does not have to answer these tough questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded

Why are the people in the IPCC acting like this if they have nothing to hide?

I'm astonished at the video. It's always possible to edit something to make it seem worse or put a different spin on it, but it seems to confirm what
Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist said; “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.

Remember, also, Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

Akrasia

auerillo wrote: »

I'm astonished at the video. It's always possible to edit something to make it seem worse or put a different spin on it, but it seems to confirm what
Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist said; “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.

Remember, also, Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

Just to let everyone know, the person ejected was Phelim Mcaleer, professional sh1tstirrer and director of blatant corporate propaganda

SLUSK

Akrasia wrote: »

Just to let everyone know, the person ejected was Phelim Mcaleer, professional sh1tstirrer and director of blatant corporate propaganda

Who cares who we was? Why couldn't the guy answer a straight question if they did not have anything to hide? This does not look good. It's all over the internet now and people can see how the IPCC is behaving...

Toiletroll

Not a bad debate...

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

Mozart1986

Toiletroll wrote: »

Not a bad debate...

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

That is brilliant, thanks very much. Thats exactly the kind of forum I was looking for. It was very informative.

Everyone should watch this video.

Akrasia

SLUSK wrote: »

Who cares who we was? Why couldn't the guy answer a straight question if they did not have anything to hide? This does not look good. It's all over the internet now and people can see how the IPCC is behaving...

The Scientist was answering his question, the security guards ejected him.

The denialists are making a huge deal about the fact that they were armed guards, It's pure propaganda, it's not like a swat team dragged him out, they were armed because they were protecting the U.N. It's not like they drew their guns on the man.

All this propaganda it's quite funny actually, on some denial blogs, you have faux outrage at the treatment of Mcaleer by the U.N. for not being alowed to speak (ask repetitive belligerant questions, refusing to sit down when the questions were answered until the security were forced to eject him) But right beside this attack on free speech, is another video of protesters being thrown out of a conference run by a libertarian think tank to oppose action on global warming. The denialists claim that the protesters being ejected from this conference were trying to stifle free speech, but when Phelim Mcaleer used an equally disruptive strategy to disrupt a conference, suddenly, he's the one who's being denied freedom of speech?

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

Who cares who we was? Why couldn't the guy answer a straight question if they did not have anything to hide? This does not look good.

No it doesn’t look good, but it wasn’t edited to “look good”, was it?

Toiletroll wrote: »

Not a bad debate...

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

A link to a 2-hour long video does not constitute discussion.

SLUSK

djpbarry wrote: »

No it doesn’t look good, but it wasn’t edited to “look good”, was it?

Just blame the editors for having an agenda... Seems like you are willing to say anything to defend these people.

Mozart1986

Akrasia wrote: »

The Scientist was answering his question, the security guards ejected him.

The denialists are making a huge deal about the fact that they were armed guards, It's pure propaganda, it's not like a swat team dragged him out, they were armed because they were protecting the U.N. It's not like they drew their guns on the man.

All this propaganda it's quite funny actually, on some denial blogs, you have faux outrage at the treatment of Mcaleer by the U.N. for not being alowed to speak (ask repetitive belligerant questions, refusing to sit down when the questions were answered until the security were forced to eject him) But right beside this attack on free speech, is another video of protesters being thrown out of a conference run by a libertarian think tank to oppose action on global warming. The denialists claim that the protesters being ejected from this conference were trying to stifle free speech, but when Phelim Mcaleer used an equally disruptive strategy to disrupt a conference, suddenly, he's the one who's being denied freedom of speech?

Wow, you are very partial. I am no libertarian, but if you are seriously comparing the disruption caused by that guy asking question and the 30 protesters that SHUT DOWN the broadcast of the libertarian meeting. It is nuts to think that someone could be that partial as to think they are even remotely comparable. One was just one guy, who was escorted out. The other was a large group of people who asked NO questions, they ambushed the meeting. I'm not surprised at them. I know plenty of dogmatic and violently anti-free speech "activists" in UCD. They have died out over the past few years, but I used to go to meetings with them in 1st & 2nd year. Those people are retards who re-inforce their own delusional sense of middle-class piety, putting humility and reason on the back-burner because, being cumbersome and time consuming, it that takes away from their "cause" and only serves to divide their religious sense of collectivism. And they ARE anti-free speech because libertarianism, while I don't agree with them personally, and other legitimate political groups have every right to organise and broadcast their manifestos.

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

The Scientist was answering his question, the security guards ejected him.

The denialists are making a huge deal about the fact that they were armed guards, It's pure propaganda, it's not like a swat team dragged him out, they were armed because they were protecting the U.N. It's not like they drew their guns on the man.

All this propaganda it's quite funny actually, on some denial blogs, you have faux outrage at the treatment of Mcaleer by the U.N. for not being alowed to speak (ask repetitive belligerant questions, refusing to sit down when the questions were answered until the security were forced to eject him) But right beside this attack on free speech, is another video of protesters being thrown out of a conference run by a libertarian think tank to oppose action on global warming. The denialists claim that the protesters being ejected from this conference were trying to stifle free speech, but when Phelim Mcaleer used an equally disruptive strategy to disrupt a conference, suddenly, he's the one who's being denied freedom of speech?

Are you not in the least worried that a journalist, asking a question, in what appears to be a calm and non heated situation, was ejected by security guards, simply for asking a question?

What else do you think he might have done that warranted his being ejected?

Is it enough that you judge him to be a "denialist"?

Remember, Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..."

meanwhile at Copenhagen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8411898.stm

Negotiations at the UN climate summit have been suspended after developing countries withdrew their co-operation.

Some third world countries walk because it becomes increasingly clear that the objective of the West is to push ahead with a carbon trading scheme which will result in the West purchasing credits to allow them to continue to emit CO2 thus in one stroke hoarding most of the worlds fossil fuel supplies and eliminating potential economic competition from the developing world.

And we have people protesting in their thousands for this. Genius. Expect some token "green" projects in the west but nothing more than they would do to increase their energy security.

asdasd

The other option is to hand over the West's entire industrial capacity to the "global south".

As much as left wing journalists may want that, the politicans would probably be sensible enough to demur. Most of the growth in Carbon emissions is outside of the West. The populations in the West would be in decline without immigration ( and surely opposing that should be an issue for environmentalists. That is, each immigrant goes from a carbon footprint of the developing world, to one of the first world? ).

And even with immigration it would be easy enough to grow the West at about 2% a year, reducing carbon at 1-2% a year.

Wont matter because 90% of the growth in Carbon is from developing countries.

Mozart1986

That MIT debate was extremely useful to me. Thanks a lot for posting it. It a great way to get a feel for the academic feeling around climategate. As Ron said, its all a risk assessment. People who consider it a low risk issue tend to deflate their findings. Those who consider it a high risk issue tend to inflate their results to ram home the massage that we're all screwed. But its a complex issue and a disbelief in AGW is still a very legitimate scientific position, which I knew already, but its great to here them say it explicitly in an unedited forum that you where you can trust the information. There is always that issue underlying even the most thorough-going sceptic. As that engineer said at the end though "I'm just a simple engineer, but I like to think I still got 2 or 3 neurons up there... I'd like to see the data for myself... I think they should be scewered!"

I also appreciate what the scientific "consensus" consists in also. That is where the AGW proponents have their blind-spot. As that female political scientists said, people don't really know how science works, they just presume its a linear process. But its a fluid dinamic process and any kind of "consnesus" should always be dealt with sceptically. Its an extremely stupid argument to use polls if you can present any real evidence. Its the sceptics that are the ones who want the data, so they can be sure for themselves and not be pure passengers in a massive political movement. Proponents can't understand that the sceptical movement throughout the internet has nothing to do with exxon or coal companies and everything to do with self-determination and a will to force those authorities to publically justify their assertions about the damaging effects of human actions on the planet. Thats the main difference. Proponents are most likely right about the science. But sceptics are right morally. The proponents wish to shut down debate, because of the fear that they will lose control over it.

My point is that it is possible to deal with AGW and still have a thorough public debate. We do not need to be herd animals or children.

So, again, great post!

"I'm just a simple engineer, but I like to think I still got 2 or 3 neurons up there... I'd like to see the data for myself..[in response to being told the source data is gone!]. I think they should be scewered!"

This comment basically sums up how I feel about the whole "climate change" debate.
The fact that the source data has "disappeard" astounds me, surly there must have been more than one copy stored in more than one place!

Mozart1986

Deleted User wrote: »

This comment basically sums up how I feel about the whole "climate change" debate.
The fact that the source data has "disappeard" astounds me, surly there must have been more than one copy stored in more than one place!

Which is also amazing because they use another argument when they have the data but don't wish it to be put into public debate, to be picked apart.

On the one hand you have data being destroyed because they hadn't the computer technology in the 80s. And on another hand you have public institutions with rights to the data they collect with public funds. How does that make sense? Its not worth keeping at one time, but now its too valuable to give out. Public services running on market principles is a complete sham. We pay for that research, which then is used to change our life-styles (which I am not in principle against) and force new taxes upon us. It should be open to any tax-payer. That is a serious flaw in the system. How technocratic:mad:!!!

auerillo

I think its accepted by everyone, except those who are believers ( the "credulousists"??) that there is a lot of academic opinion which questions the evidence that climate change is mad made.

If you notice, their arguments here seem to be to attack the character of those who question, rather than their arguments, or else they just respond to argument with a question and avoid answering whatever the issue is being debated.

We have to remember that Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..., which gives us an insight into the frame of mind of him, and perhaps into his cohorts also. Also remember, prof Jones had to resign over the emails....what do these tell anyone who is an impartial onlooker? And these are the poeple who are both telling us that the original data is "lost" and who also appear to be conspiring to withhold it from a FOI request.

In fairness, they don't come over as very honest or truthful people.

syklops

Quote:
and it is clear in the code also released.
Is it? It might be clear (at a technical level) what the code is doing, but the reasons for it aren't enshrined in code. THey're alluded to in comments, but even then, we need to understand the context of the comment.

I disagree. You do not need to know the context of the comment. All you need to do is understand what the code does. And if what the code does is reduce values, then you have to start to wonder.

If I type 2 + 2 into a calculator and I get 3, then there is something wrong with the calculator. If I feed a number into their code, and when the program is finished that value is smaller than when I started it then there is something wrong.

Over the next few days I will go through the code, and try to decide in my own opinion does the code hide anything and will let you know. I know what you will say if I do find something, but I will post it anyway.

Mozart1986

auerillo wrote: »

We have to remember that Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..., which gives us an insight into the frame of mind of him, and perhaps into his cohorts also. Also remember, prof Jones had to resign over the emails....what do these tell anyone who is an impartial onlooker? And these are the poeple who are both telling us that the original data is "lost" and who also appear to be conspiring to withhold it from a FOI request.

In fairness, they don't come over as very honest or truthful people.

But don't brand every climate scientist with the same iron. There is also the incident in New Zealand where the head of another institution collecting data for GISS and co. is under investigation for manipulating the data and the results.

So the academic institutions must be more diligent and less trusting in the methods of data collection. The peer review process that examines the data collection and interpretating procedures needs to be examined itself. This is an open debate now in academic circles. It will be hard for academic proponents of AGW to argue that this isn't a major scandal. Most won't even try, but there will be a few that will stick their heads in the sand instead of dealing with it head on.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

meanwhile at Copenhagen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8411898.stm


Some third world countries walk because it becomes increasingly clear that the objective of the West is to push ahead with a carbon trading scheme which will result in the West purchasing credits to allow them to continue to emit CO2 thus in one stroke hoarding most of the worlds fossil fuel supplies and eliminating potential economic competition from the developing world.

And we have people protesting in their thousands for this. Genius. Expect some token "green" projects in the west but nothing more than they would do to increase their energy security.

The protestors are demonstrating for action on global warming. I doubt very many of them are demonstrating for Cap and Trade which is the right wing solution to a right wing problem.

The problem with the skeptic movement in general is that, while many of them have legitimate concerns that the governments of the world are going to use Global warming as an excuse to impose taxes or a new system of carbon trading which will in turn be co-opted by powerful interests to increase their own wealth and control, instead of putting their energy into vocally opposing the details of the proposed solutions, (and proposing solutions of their own) they spend enormous energy in trying to deny that the underlying problem of global warming is real.

I should never have to have the following conversation:
Me: "Why don't you believe in global warming?"
Skeptic "Because I am opposed to Carbon taxes"

Toiletroll

djpbarry wrote: »

No it doesn’t look good, but it wasn’t edited to “look good”, was it?
A link to a 2-hour long video does not constitute discussion.

It is trying to be impartial and I feel its good to see both sides like this and could improve or stimulate discussion in the thread

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem with the skeptic movement in general is that, while many of them have legitimate concerns that the governments of the world are going to use Global warming as an excuse to impose taxes or a new system of carbon trading which will in turn be co-opted by powerful interests to increase their own wealth and control, instead of putting their energy into vocally opposing the details of the proposed solutions, (and proposing solutions of their own) they spend enormous energy in trying to deny that the underlying problem of global warming is real.

It would be unusual for a sceptic to propose solutions for a problem about which he is sceptical.

A sceptic is someone who doesn't believe something without proof.

Someone who is credulous believes something without proof, and a cynic is someone who doesn't believe something even when there is evidence for it.

Scepticism is the only sensible position for anyone with intelligence, and is the default position for scientists until they have proof.

It is hard to believe someone whose stated position is "...this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations..." or to believe someone who claims to have "lost" (and previously has stated that he will not release the information, even when it appears he is breaking the law in not so doing) the data on which he is basing his claims. More especially so when there are lots of other respected scientists who claim that the evidence just isn't there.

enfant terrible

Toiletroll wrote: »

Not a bad debate...

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

Surprised one of the scientists admitted changing his mind about climate change because he decided we only have one planet and the price of inaction would be too great.

It wasn't new convincing evidence that changed his mind just fear of inaction.

Also surprised one of them said in his closing statements that he was more disturbed by the stealing of the emails than the "malfeasance" of the scientists.

I think the political scientist summed up climate change well when she said:

"This is not a scientific issue this is a political issue"

"The task is persuasion"

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

Just blame the editors for having an agenda... Seems like you are willing to say anything to defend these people.

I’m not defending anyone or anything. I am however saying that accepting the version of events presented in a video posted by an anonymous individual on the internet doesn’t strike me as ‘scientifically rigorous’.

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

I also appreciate what the scientific "consensus" consists in also. That is where the AGW proponents have their blind-spot. As that female political scientists said, people don't really know how science works, they just presume its a linear process. But its a fluid dinamic process and any kind of "consnesus" should always be dealt with sceptically.

A consensus probably exists among astronomers that the theory of gravity provides an accurate description of the interaction between celestial bodies. I think we should therefore demand access to all of NASA’s raw data.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Its the sceptics that are the ones who want the data, so they can be sure for themselves and not be pure passengers in a massive political movement.

How many of these sceptics are climate scientists who actually understand the data?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

If you notice, their arguments here seem to be to attack the character of those who question...

You mean the way you attempt to attack the character of Michael Mann by repeating the following ad nauseum...

auerillo wrote: »

We have to remember that Michael Mann said "... As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations...

I believe this has already been asked before on this thread, but I’ll ask again; what is “this” that Mann is referring to?

auerillo wrote: »

In fairness, they don't come over as very honest or truthful people.

Didn’t you just say it is arguments that should be focussed on, rather than character?

auerillo wrote: »

More especially so when there are lots of other respected scientists who claim that the evidence just isn't there.

How many are climate scientists?

djpbarry

syklops wrote: »

You do not need to know the context of the comment. All you need to do is understand what the code does. And if what the code does is reduce values, then you have to start to wonder.

I’m pretty sure that at some point during the course of my work I have included a statement such as 'i--;' somewhere in my source code; I’m obviously up to something incredibly sinister.

syklops wrote: »

If I feed a number into their code, and when the program is finished that value is smaller than when I started it then there is something wrong.

Or, perhaps you do not understand what it is the code is supposed to do?