Climategate?

djpbarry

Toiletroll wrote: »

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

Assuming that everyone participating in this thread has two hours to spare to watch your video (I’m guessing most people don’t).

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

You mean the way you attempt to attack the character of Michael Mann by repeating the following ad nauseum...
I believe this has already been asked before on this thread, but I’ll ask again; what is “this” that Mann is referring to?
Didn’t you just say it is arguments that should be focussed on, rather than character?
How many are climate scientists?

I refer you to this post where I point out that you deliberately misinterpret what I say and then use that to ask a silly bunch of questions to avoid debating or engaging. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63380111&postcount=242

If you are unable to differentiate between attacking someone's character, and taking what someone has said and deducing that that reveals something about them, then you are unable to differentiate between them.

Others here are able to understand the difference, and seem to prefer to engage and discuss and I hope you'll forgive me for not answering the questions in your post which appear, as usual, to be designed to avoid engaging and discussing.

djpbarry wrote: »

Assuming that everyone participating in this thread has two hours to spare to watch your video (I’m guessing most people don’t)

Why not speak for yourself, and avoid "assuming" what others do or don't have time for. Quite apart from each of our assumptions about what other do or don't do, it doesn't really add anything to the debate.

Back on topic; I heard Al Gore got a pasting last night from a certain Dr Maslowksi. In a speech, Gore claimed that Dr Maslowksi had said that the ice caps could be totally gone in summer within 7 years. Unfortunately, Dr Maslowksi happened to be present and told Gore that he had never said such a thing and, what is more, he didn't believe it was likely. NAturally, the papers have it today under teh heading "an inconvenient truth".

Akrasia

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!

There is more than one copy, the CRU doesn't collect the data, they just analyse it. If Watts was genuinely interested in looking at the raw data he could have gone to the source himself instead of posing beligerant FOI requests. CRU had already released it's files to Watts, it just didn't have all of te original data on file (although it would know exactly where to go to re-create those records if they needed to)

Amhran Nua

Akrasia wrote: »

If Watts was genuinely interested in looking at the raw data he could have gone to the source himself instead of posing beligerant FOI requests.

Has anyone any plans to do that?

gizmo555

enfant terrible wrote: »

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.

You are entirely mistaken - it was new convincing evidence that changed his mind. What Professor Prinn actually said was that in the ten year interval between his testimonies to the US Congress in 1997 and 2007, enough new evidence emerged to persuade him that as a matter of statistical probability, global warming is man-made. You'll find this part of his speech somewhere around the 40 to 50 minute mark on the video.

The further comments he added that we have to apply the precautionary principle rather than conduct what amounts to a global-scale experiment on the climate with potentially catastrophic results are simple common sense.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I refer you to this post where I point out that you deliberately misinterpret what I say and then use that to ask a silly bunch of questions to avoid debating or engaging.

Questions are the very essence of discussion and debate - get used to them.

auerillo wrote: »

Others here are able to understand the difference, and seem to prefer to engage and discuss and I hope you'll forgive me for not answering the questions in your post which appear, as usual, to be designed to avoid engaging and discussing.

The questions are designed to clarify - if you continue to avoid questions, I will assume that you are soap-boxing.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

The questions are designed to clarify - if you continue to avoid questions, I will assume that you are soap-boxing.

thats laughable....... get over your own self importance, if a poster has no wish to answer your specfic questions then thats their choice, Auerillo discusses and debates quite well here with all other posters....

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

...Auerillo discusses and debates quite well here with all other posters....

...who happen to agree with his/her point of view. That's not debating.

Mozart1986

djpbarry wrote: »

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

Cop out! Most academics will agree that the e-mails are disturbing and cas doubt on the credibility of the methods, which need review, not blind acceptance that we'll just never understand because we are just dumb plebs that are meddling in business that doesn't concern us. Unfortunately it does concern us. Thank **** we live in a free country, and not a Moaist dictatorship where prols/people are not considered fully rational. We are rational and if the code is not fully explainable to somebody that I trust then I will keep questioning the assertions, lest I be considered a herd animal.

djpbarry

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Most academics will agree that the e-mails are disturbing and cas doubt on the credibility of the methods...

...in your opinion. In my opinion, most academics will accept that their own email accounts probably contain text that could easily be twisted out of context and used against them to suit a particular agenda.

Mozart1986 wrote: »

...which need review, not blind acceptance that we'll just never understand because we are just dumb plebs that are meddling in business that doesn't concern us.

But you see, that’s the thing – we are dumb plebs. Becoming an expert in a particular scientific discipline is not something that can be achieved by reading a few Wikipedia articles or a few blog entries. It’s impossible for everyone to be an expert in everything, so there comes a point where you simply have to concede that you don’t know what you’re talking about and the important decisions need to be based on the testimony of those who do.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose Martin Durkin goes to his doctor with a particular complaint. The doctor advises him that the condition is far more serious than Mr. Durkin realises and there is a risk that his health may deteriorate in the not-too-distant future. However, there are several procedures that could protect his health and lengthen his life. Does Mr. Durkin dismiss the Doctor’s advice on the grounds that the science is not ‘exact’, demanding access to the data upon which the Doctor’s advice was based, or does he concede that the Doctor probably knows what (s)he’s talking about and maybe he should take heed?

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose Martin Durkin goes to his doctor with a particular complaint. The doctor advises him that the condition is far more serious than Mr. Durkin realises and there is a risk that his health may deteriorate in the not-too-distant future. However, there are several procedures that could protect his health and lengthen his life. Does Mr. Durkin dismiss the Doctor’s advice on the grounds that the science is not ‘exact’, demanding access to the data upon which the Doctor’s advice was based, or does he concede that the Doctor probably knows what (s)he’s talking about and maybe he should take heed?

and suppose that the doctor is one of the doctors who mis-diagonse Cancer... or the ones who we read in the paper all the time about having mal practise cases brought against them....
just cause they are doctors or supposed experts in their field does not make them right..... and a belief that they are is not a belief I would support......

bonkey

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Cop out! Most academics will agree that the e-mails are disturbing and cas doubt on the credibility of the methods,

Even if that's true, it does not suggest for a moment that academics are agreeing that the emails prove wrongdoing.

which need review,

Agreed. They need review, by people qualified to perform such a review.

For anyone...whether they be competently qualified or not...the current, correct status should therefore be to be open to th epossibility that there is something wrong, as well as the possibility that there was no wrongdoing.

that we'll just never understand because we are just dumb plebs that are meddling in business that doesn't concern us.

You were asked if the possibility existed that you didn't understand the code. How you're taking from this an insistence that its none of your business is beyond me.

Are you open to the possibility that there is nothing wrong with the code, and that the problem you are seeing is casued by your lack of understanding of it?

From your stated position, if the output isn't what you expect it to be, then there is something wrong. This isn't a suggestion that the code be reviewed. This isn't allowing that there may be something wrong. Its a flat-out statement that either it does what you expect, or there's a problem.

When asked if you are open to the possibility that the problem lies with you, you raise objections, and invoke "most academics" who are, ironically, not taking the position that you are.

We are rational and if the code is not fully explainable to somebody that I trust then I will keep questioning the assertions, lest I be considered a herd animal.

If you're not open to the possibility that your understanding may be where the problem lies, then aren't you just following a different herd?

bonkey

robtri wrote: »

and suppose that the doctor is one of the doctors who mis-diagonse Cancer... or the ones who we read in the paper all the time about having mal practise cases brought against them....
just cause they are doctors or supposed experts in their field does not make them right..... and a belief that they are is not a belief I would support......

Well, that's why Durkin would consider seeking a second opinion...and even a third and fourth.

I'm sure you can agree that if he just kept going until he found the opinion he wanted to hear, he would be wrong.

If he found that the vast, overwhelming majority of doctors specialised in this field said he most probably had cancer...what should he conclude? IIf he found that dozens of different tests all agreed that he had cancer, but that one or two of them were being questioned for reliability...what should he conclude?

If he was uncertain...thought he might have cancer, but wasn't entirely certain...what would you recommend?

robtri

bonkey wrote: »

Well, that's why Durkin would consider seeking a second opinion...and even a third and fourth.

I'm sure you can agree that if he just kept going until he found the opinion he wanted to hear, he would be wrong.

If he found that the vast, overwhelming majority of doctors specialised in this field said he most probably had cancer...what should he conclude? IIf he found that dozens of different tests all agreed that he had cancer, but that one or two of them were being questioned for reliability...what should he conclude?

If he was uncertain...thought he might have cancer, but wasn't entirely certain...what would you recommend?

Try telling that to a lot of women patients that where told they had cance and had operations, that subsequently turned out they didn't need ....

or what about the doctors that that told a lot of patients they didn't have cancer and turned out they did....
it happens look at our recnt past in the HSE.....

as I said before just becuse they are a doctor doesn't mean they know everything and are right about every medical condition....
likewise for scientists..... not every one agrees on the cause for global warming.... I am not saying whos right or wrong......
I am just arguing the case aginst DJPbarrys point... at some stage we have to accept what we are being told.....

auerillo

bonkey wrote: »

Well, that's why Durkin would consider seeking a second opinion...and even a third and fourth.

I'm sure you can agree that if he just kept going until he found the opinion he wanted to hear, he would be wrong.

If he found that the vast, overwhelming majority of doctors specialised in this field said he most probably had cancer...what should he conclude? IIf he found that dozens of different tests all agreed that he had cancer, but that one or two of them were being questioned for reliability...what should he conclude?

If he was uncertain...thought he might have cancer, but wasn't entirely certain...what would you recommend?

I think it's up to Durkin to decide for himself what to conclude, and not for us to tell him what he should conclude.

As an analogy with man made global warming, it is flawed as it's not the case that the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists know one way or the other. What we do know is that there are some scientists who would like us to believe that the vast majority of scientists all agree that global warming is man made, but this simply isn't the case.

In this post I gave direct quotes from some scientists about the issue; http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63388567&postcount=251

and I repeat their opinions here;

Professor John Curistie, lead author , IPCC; “I’ve often heard it said in the past that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue,and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that that is simply not true”…”we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science”

Professor Philip Stott, Dept of BioGeograhpy, University of London; “The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven”…” it’s become a great industry in itself, and if the whole global warming farrago collapsed, there’s be an awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work”

Professor Paul reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; This claim that the IPSS is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply isn’t true. There are quite a few non scientists.

Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T: And to build the number up to 2000 or 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to that, and none of them are asked to agree, and many of them disagree”…

…“People have decided you have to convince other people, that no scientist disagrees then you shouldn’t either. Whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda”

Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace; “You see, I don’t even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, it’s a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level”.

Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite team Leader, NASA; “Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding”

Nigel Calder, Former Editor, New Scientist; “I’ve seen the spitting fury at anyone who might disagree with them, which is not the scientific way”.

bonkey

robtri wrote: »

Try telling that to a lot of women patients that where told they had cance and had operations, that subsequently turned out they didn't need ....

If we want to play that game, try telling all hte people who did listen to their doctors, and had their lives extended through successful treatment that they were wrong to have listened.
Try telling the people who didn't listen to their doctors and died of cancer as a result. (Obviously, you can't).

or what about the doctors that that told a lot of patients they didn't have cancer and turned out they did....
it happens look at our recnt past in the HSE.....

No-one has said that the science is perfect. No-one has claied that climate science is perfect.

What has been claimed, and is applicable to both situations, is that the "best guess" - the most likely outcome, based on the best evidence available - is the best position to base one's decisions on.

To make a better comparison than individual cases of cancer, one should say that presented with specific symptoms, the vast majority of relevantly-qualified physicians would agree that a patient most likely has cancer. They could, of course, still be wrong.

For the individual patient, there are a number of possibilties:

1) The have cancer. They treat for cancer. They are inconvenienced, perhaps seriously, but their chances of survival are maximised.
2) They have cancer. They don't treat for cancer. THeir cances of survival are minimised.
3) They don't have cancer. They treat for cancer. They are inconvenienced, perhaps seriously, but their chances of survival are almost maximised.
4) They don't have cancer. They don't treat for cancer. They are not inconvenienced. Their chances of survival are maximised.

Now...plug the 90% in there.

Cases 1 and 2. 90% of all people fall into these cases. Case 1 is clearly the preferable situation.
Cases 3 and 4. 10% of all people fall into these cases. Case 4 is clearly the preferable situation.

So....you don't know whehter you are in the 90% or the 10%. Your choice is to fall into options 1/3 or options 2/4.

If you go for options 2/4 then 90% of the time, you end up minimising your chances of survival. 10% of the time, its a less-than-optimal choice.
If you go for options 1/3, then 90% of the time, you end up maximising your chances of survival. 10% of the time, its the best choice.

From a game-theory perspective...maximising return....proceeding on the assumption that you have cancer is the right path to take.

as I said before just becuse they are a doctor doesn't mean they know everything and are right about every medical condition....
likewise for scientists..... not every one agrees on the cause for global warming.... I am not saying whos right or wrong......
I am just arguing the case aginst DJPbarrys point... at some stage we have to accept what we are being told.....

The best evidence that we have says that there is a very high probability that they are correct. The evidence is, perforce, incomplete. The possibility that even with complete evidence, the wrong conclusion be reached is, of course, possible.

Note - none of this says anything about what the appropriate action to take is. That is an entirely seperate debate...one we can only meaningful discuss on the assumption that the "best guess" is correct.

asdasd

None of that is a good analogy. The demands made by Chief Scientists and the "Global South" ( reductions of up to 50% in Carbon by 2020 from now with minor reductions from developing countries) is a demand for the dismemberment of the industrial base of the West. Whats left of it.

It is like killing the patient to save it.

bonkey

auerillo wrote: »

I think it's up to Durkin to decide for himself what to conclude, and not for us to tell him what he should conclude.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should tell him. I'm saying that looking at a case impassionately, one can apply game theory to see what the options are.

Looking at a decision that society should make, rather than an individual, I would argue that society would be foolish in the extreme to take anyting but a risk-averse position. Minimise risk, even at the cost of slightly reducing the maximum gain. (When one looks beyond global warming, however, its arguable that the risk-minimisation strategy also offers the maximum gain).

As an analogy with man made global warming, it is flawed as it's not the case that the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists know one way or the other.

It is the case, however, that any time that the opinion of relevantly qualified scientists have been measured, it has been overwhelmingly in support of the position.

What we do know is that there are some scientists who would like us to believe that the vast majority of scientists all agree that global warming is man made, but this simply isn't the case.

But the question isn't about what the vast majority of scientists agree on. Its about what the vast majority of relevantly qualified scientists agree on....and that has been measured in more ways then just taking the IPCC's statements.

In this post I gave direct quotes from some scientists about the issue;

What you haven't done, however, is shown why these individuals are more trustworthy....nor why their claims cast any reasonable doubt on the science. Repeatedly posting their comments doesn't make the argument any stronger...merely more visible. Ironically, that's the same type of tactic that many of the people you're quoting are complaining about.

I'll readily agree that there are non-scientists on the IPCC, and that the claims of thousands of supporting scientists are irrelevant. I'll readily agree that there are political factors at play.

Where I don't agree, however, is that this somehow invalidates the science. It seems, rather, to be an attmept to not discuss the science....to cast doubt indirectly rather than showing that there's something wrong.

bonkey

asdasd wrote: »

None of that is a good analogy. The demands made by Chief Scientists and the "Global South" ( reductions of up to 50% in Carbon by 2020 from now with minor reductions from developing countries) is a demand for the dismemberment of the industrial base of the West. Whats left of it.

It is like killing the patient to save it.

Allow me to repeat myself, from my bad analgy:

Note - none of this says anything about what the appropriate action to take is.

asdasd

asdasd wrote: »

None of that is a good analogy. The demands made by Chief Scientists and the "Global South" ( reductions of up to 50% in Carbon by 2020 from now with minor reductions from developing countries) is a demand for the dismemberment of the industrial base of the West. Whats left of it.

It is like killing the patient to save it.

Consumers in the west have done a pretty good job of that already!
Carbon cap & trade will kill much of what's left!

Exactly who is Copenhagen supposed to help again?

asdasd

Note - none of this says anything about what the appropriate action to take is.

Fair enough. I could come on board with Carbon reductions in the West mostly caused by changed in technology - enforced or otherwise ( like the new lights which I think are a good idea, or fuel efficiency demanded for newly manufactured cars).

Not that I think there is a huge problem here, but energy security would be a good idea anyway.

auerillo

bonkey wrote: »

What you haven't done, however, is shown why these individuals are more trustworthy....nor why their claims cast any reasonable doubt on the science. Repeatedly posting their comments doesn't make the argument any stronger...merely more visible. Ironically, that's the same type of tactic that many of the people you're quoting are complaining about.

I don't make any claims as to their trustworthy status, but merely to show that there is not a consensus amongst the scientific community as many seem to claim.

Sometimes it's necessary to repeat a rebuttal as others repeat that there is a consensus! There isn't!

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

Sometimes it's necessary to repeat a rebuttal as others repeat that there is a consensus! There isn't!

If there was no consensus, then the IPCC, for example, would not be in a position to publish a consensus, would they?

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

If there was no consensus, then the IPCC, for example, would not be in a position to publish a consensus, would they?

I suspect that after all the funding they have received over the years, their sponsors are likely to believe they have a right to a consensus!

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect that after all the funding they have received over the years, their sponsors are likely to believe they have a right to a consensus!

If the “sponsors” really did dictate the research outcomes to any great extent, then a strong scientific consensus opposing the IPCC’s position should really have developed by now, considering that industry-sourced research funding generally exceeds government funding by a factor of 2.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

If the “sponsors” really did dictate the research outcomes to any great extent, then a strong scientific consensus opposing the IPCC’s position should really have developed by now, considering that industry-sourced research funding generally exceeds government funding by a factor of 2.

The question you need to ask yourself is, what would be a favorable outcome for the sponsors and is the IPCC response in line with that expectation.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

The question you need to ask yourself is, what would be a favorable outcome for the sponsors and is the IPCC response in line with that expectation.

So you're saying that governments (the sponsors of the IPCC) Want global warming to be real?

What evidence do you have of this? Does the Australian government want global warming to be real? Did the U.S. government under GW Bush want global warming to be real?

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

So you're saying that governments (the sponsors of the IPCC) Want global warming to be real?

Carbon tax!

Akrasia wrote: »

What evidence do you have of this? Does the Australian government want global warming to be real? Did the U.S. government under GW Bush want global warming to be real?

Not all governments, as you have pointed out!

bonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Carbon tax!!

So decades of research has been funded by a myriad of governments around the world, some of whom then went to great lengths to discredit and deny the findings, only to accept them when they began to realise their position was untenable....all so that they could charge a few cents on a liter of fuel, the revenue from which they will have to spend on something.

All I can say is that I'm glad that these secret world alliances of governments are so stupid, that they create such fiendishly overcomplex plans to achieve so little.

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

So decades of research has been funded by a myriad of governments around the world, some of whom then went to great lengths to discredit and deny the findings, only to accept them when they began to realise their position was untenable....all so that they could charge a few cents on a liter of fuel, the revenue from which they will have to spend on something.

All I can say is that I'm glad that these secret world alliances of governments are so stupid, that they create such fiendishly overcomplex plans to achieve so little.

The carbon tax is only the start, the creation of a multi-million doller cap and trade market similar to the stock market will transfer wealth.

What was wrong with sticking to simple good old fashiond energy saving, wasting less and sensible recycling!

This whole global warming scenario has created (in the process of greating) a multi-billion doller industry with few benefits to the vast majority.