Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Climategate?

13567…16

Comments

  • #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I think you know what my point is - an increase in CO2 concentration will only benefit plant growth if all other nutrients are present in the requisite amounts.

    And climate models from the IPCC show that rainfall will increase.

    Anyway apparently its all much much worse than predicted
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science

    ^^


  • #103
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And climate models from the IPCC show that rainfall will increase.

    Anyway apparently its all much much worse than predicted
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science

    ^^
    And after a few years of punitive "carbon taxation" they'll turn around and say "look the taxes worked, it's cooler!" :mad:


  • #104
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    And climate models from the IPCC show that rainfall will increase.
    And plants depend on more than just CO2 and water - can we leave it at that please? It's not really relevant to the thread anyway.


  • #105
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,111 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And how accurate is this “history”?

    More accurate than any climate 'models.'

    More accurate than revisionist temperature data.

    You are desperately grasping at straws with such a question.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    And climate models from the IPCC show that rainfall will increase.
    The historical evidence from the medieval warm period indicates summers were dryer when temperatures were warmer.


  • #106
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    cnocbui wrote: »
    More accurate than any climate 'models.'

    More accurate than revisionist temperature data.

    You are desperately grasping at straws with such a question.

    The historical evidence from the medieval warm period indicates summers were dryer when temperatures were warmer.
    cnocbui, you're basing your entire argument on temperature data from tree rings when we know that temperatures extrapolated from tree rings are not entirely accurate.

    In fact, in the 1960s, when we had highly accurate thermometers, data from tree rings indicated entirely different temperatures that we knew to be incorrect.


  • #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Newsnight piece on the leaked emails:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYVxmPDEGMk


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ0t_1B1Dgs
    Borrowed from thepropertypin.com.

    One thing about the report that annoyed me, was the attemped redirection of the use of the work "trick" in the report by University staff, rather than commenting on the selective use of data!

    But the other scientist who demonstrated "selective data selection" really demonstrated (in the wrong way) that the results were as a result of "cherry picking raw data.


  • #108
    hiwayman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭hiwayman


    The word trick could possibly be explained away, but this latest post from WUWT leaves it in the shade.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/#more-13197


  • #109
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    More accurate than any climate 'models.'

    More accurate than revisionist temperature data.
    Are you sure about that? Are historical accounts reliable proxy indicators of climate? For example, one of the sources you use mentions the following:

    “It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.”

    But there are vineyards as far north as Yorkshire and Lancashire right now! So if the extent of English vineyards is a reliable proxy indicator of climate, surely that means temperatures are at least as high today as they were in medieval times? If they’re not a reliable indicator (which they’re not), then there’s no point talking about them.


  • #110
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,111 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    taconnol wrote: »
    cnocbui, you're basing your entire argument on temperature data from tree rings when we know that temperatures extrapolated from tree rings are not entirely accurate.

    In fact, in the 1960s, when we had highly accurate thermometers, data from tree rings indicated entirely different temperatures that we knew to be incorrect.

    Show me my post where I mentioned tree rings.


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are you sure about that? Are historical accounts reliable proxy indicators of climate? For example, one of the sources you use mentions the following:

    “It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.”

    But there are vineyards as far north as Yorkshire and Lancashire right now! So if the extent of English vineyards is a reliable proxy indicator of climate, surely that means temperatures are at least as high today as they were in medieval times? If they’re not a reliable indicator (which they’re not), then there’s no point talking about them.
    FWIW, I used to live near an English vineyard, currently only white wine (too cold for red) can be produced in England, but some of these reports refer to red wine being produced. Edit:something I find hard to believe - and I can't google it!

    Good old wikipedia, always on the ball, expect a lot of changes though!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,111 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are you sure about that? Are historical accounts reliable proxy indicators of climate? For example, one of the sources you use mentions the following:

    “It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.”

    But there are vineyards as far north as Yorkshire and Lancashire right now! So if the extent of English vineyards is a reliable proxy indicator of climate, surely that means temperatures are at least as high today as they were in medieval times? If they’re not a reliable indicator (which they’re not), then there’s no point talking about them.

    The whole point of my bringing up the MWP was to show that Mann fudged the temperature record - as was alluded to in the leaked emails - in an attempt to make the Medieval Warm Period go away so that he could then claim that current temperatures were the warmest for a millenium.

    Temperatures have now gotten close to those during the MWP. You pointing out that there are vineyards that far north again, corroborates and supports the accuracy of history, which you were earlier trying to insinuate was inaccurate.

    Your claim that vinyards are not a reliable indicator of climate is in contrast to several academics who one supposes are probably reasonably expert in their subject fields. Is there any particular reason your statement to the contrary should be given more credence than those academics?

    At least one of those researchers is mentioned in the Climategate emails (Palutikof) and does not seem to agree with you, since he nominates vinyards in the UK as an indicator of climate change.

    he is not the only one:
    “Grapes are a good indicator crop,” explains Jones regarding the broader applications of their wine-specific work. Because wine grapes are grown in temperate climates - what’s called a “Mediterranean” climate - and wines are almost obsessively tasted and rated for quality, wine grapes are a particularly good indicator of changes that are probably effecting other crops in the same areas, says Jones.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=23928


  • #113
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Show me my post where I mentioned tree rings.

    This link:

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

    Look at the caption under the graph


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Not exactly climategate, but a potential foretaste as to what may become of the proceeds of "carbon taxation"
    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8376009.stm
    Climate change help for the poor 'has not materialised'

    Large sums promised to developing countries to help them tackle climate change cannot be accounted for, a BBC investigation has found.

    Rich countries pledged $410m (£247m) a year in a 2001 declaration - but it is now unclear whether the money was paid.

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has accused industrialised countries of failing to keep their promise.

    The EU says the money was paid out in bilateral deals, but admits it cannot provide data to prove it.


  • #115
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,111 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    taconnol wrote: »
    This link:

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

    Look at the caption under the graph

    I didn't reference that graph or that paragraph, I referenced the one below it - 10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum.

    But since you insist on bringing up tree ring data and it's purported innacuracy, could you explain why some of the leading AGW proponents, like Mann and Briffa, have relied upon it - well after they have cherry picked it of course - to support their arguments?


  • #116
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Temperatures have now gotten close to those during the MWP.
    I’m intrigued to know what you’re basing that on.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    You pointing out that there are vineyards that far north again, corroborates and supports the accuracy of history, which you were earlier trying to insinuate was inaccurate.
    It doesn’t corroborate anything. We know exactly how many vineyards there are in England today. We also have a very accurate measure of the mean temperature. Can we say the same of the Middle Ages? Obviously not, hence a correlation cannot be derived. Even if it could, other factors would need to be taken into consideration. For example, I’m guessing the supposed popularity of wine in England during the Middle Ages might have had something to do with the arrival of the Normans?
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Your claim that vinyards are not a reliable indicator of climate is in contrast to several academics who one supposes are probably reasonably expert in their subject fields.
    One supposes that they are. However, the fact that one’s ability to grow grapes depends heavily on a region’s climate is stating the obvious. Citing vague historical accounts of the extent of vineyards as a stand-alone scientific proxy indicator of climate variability is another matter entirely. Considering your dismissal of temperature reconstructions based on tree-ring data, your faith in ambiguous records that pre-date the foundation of the modern scientific method is quite remarkable.


  • #117
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    Mark200 wrote: »
    All I'm going to say is, I doubt the world of scientists have been depending on the University of East Anglia for all their global warming research.

    Well you are wrong, this "research unit" was the foundation of all IPCC reports until 2007;

    "In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MA


  • #118
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    cnocbui wrote: »
    I didn't reference that graph or that paragraph, I referenced the one below it - 10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum.
    Oh sorry. But where is the source for that paragraph? There isn't one.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    But since you insist on bringing up tree ring data and it's purported innacuracy, could you explain why some of the leading AGW proponents, like Mann and Briffa, have relied upon it - well after they have cherry picked it of course - to support their arguments?
    No, the data in the graph is direct tree growth data. And tree ring data has to be interpreted, not taken directly as tree growth. You call it "cherry picking" but not to factor in known issues is bad scientific procedure.


  • #119
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    Raw data is of no use, you need to take the raw data and apply "science" then you get what you need. The whole scientific movement is quickly turning into a laughing stock.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/


  • #120
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    HollyEvans wrote: »
    Raw data is of no use, you need to take the raw data and apply "science" then you get what you need. The whole scientific movement is quickly turning into a laughing stock.
    This is just getting ridiculous. Do you understand the science behind tree ring data?
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
    What exactly is this link supposed to prove? Linking to a site is not the same as formulating an argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    taconnol wrote: »
    This is just getting ridiculous. Do you understand the science behind tree ring data?

    When did I mention anything about tree ring data?
    taconnol wrote: »
    What exactly is this link supposed to prove? Linking to a site is not the same as formulating an argument.

    This link shows that the research unit in the middle of this scam has until 2007 provided the foundation evidence of "global warming" to the IPCC.


  • #122
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    HollyEvans wrote: »
    When did I mention anything about tree ring data?
    My post previous to yours discussed dealing with tree ring data and then your post complained about the handling of raw data. My mistake if I thought we were discussing the same thing.
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    This link shows that the research unit in the middle of this scam has until 2007 provided the foundation evidence of "global warming" to the IPCC.
    How exactly does it show that?

    [mod]I am really going to have to reiterate djpbarry's request that claims be backed up properly because this thread is descending into unfounded hysteria. [/mod]


  • #123
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    taconnol wrote: »

    How exactly does it show that?

    Have you read the post

    "In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”


  • #124
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    Perhaps the most disturbing facet of all this is that the Peer Review process, so often hailed by this group of scientists as proving their case, is now seem as flawed, with the real data not being made available to anyone other than themselves, and they are all "peer reviewing " each others work while at the same time admitting to manipulating the statistics to help their case.

    If that is true (which it seems to be from the emails which have been released and, so far, not denied) then they are shameful.

    In fact, if it proves to be the case that they have misled the governments of the world, then court proceedings should follow.

    This appear to be more seroius than just a few scientists conspiring to alter the truth, as the effects of this has reverbations around the world.



    The


  • #125
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    Perhaps the most disturbing facet of all this is that the Peer Review process, so often hailed by this group of scientists as proving their case, is now seem as flawed...
    How have you arrive at that conclusion? The peer review process is anonymous - nobody should know who is reviewing their work.


  • #126
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How have you arrive at that conclusion? The peer review process is anonymous - nobody should know who is reviewing their work.

    I have to say that I now agree with djpbarry that there is now conclusive evidence that climate change is, after all , man made.

    Thankfully its not the actual climate which has been changed by man, but the temperature records coming out of the university of East Anglia which have been changed by man.

    To your "
    djpbarry wrote: »
    nobody should know who is reviewing their work.
    I'd add "no one was meant to find out that they have been cooking the books".


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    edanto wrote: »
    Climate scientists are not living lives of luxury, generally. Even though they have a motivation (funding) to convince people of their 'side', the money at stake is far less than on the sceptic side.

    Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_Law


  • #128
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    I have to say that I now agree with djpbarry that there is now conclusive evidence that climate change is, after all , man made.

    Thankfully its not the actual climate which has been changed by man, but the temperature records coming out of the university of East Anglia which have been changed by man.

    To your " I'd add "no one was meant to find out that they have been cooking the books".
    Ok, I’m getting tired of this nonsense. This thread is quickly descending into farce, so this is the last time I’m going to say this.

    I have no problem with people discussing these emails, but if a claim is made, it must be supported by evidence (as per the forum charter). I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that soapboxing is not tolerated on this or any other boards.ie forum.

    Infractions will follow if this warning goes unheeded.


  • #129
    someoneok
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭someoneok


    Oh we see you have the power alright. How does it make you feel? Have you some money or vested interests in man made global warming?
    Anyway back to the topic at hand This is a good thread I found on this event
    http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4657
    The guy on this site is irish and he is an honest journalist in my opinion.Enjoy!


  • #130
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How have you arrive at that conclusion? The peer review process is anonymous - nobody should know who is reviewing their work.

    can you prove that it is anonymous?


  • #131
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Allegations_of_bias_and_suppression
    Allegations of bias and suppression

    The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers[citation needed]. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[10] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[11][12][13] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them.

    This wiki article outlines one of the shortcommings with peer review, it is in keeping with the alleged manipulation of date as highlighted by this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    someoneok wrote: »
    Oh we see you have the power alright.
    Less of the commentary on moderation please.
    someoneok wrote: »
    Anyway back to the topic at hand This is a good thread I found on this event
    http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4657
    The guy on this site is irish and he is an honest journalist in my opinion.Enjoy!
    ‘Honest’ because his conclusions happen to agree with your own, perhaps?


  • #133
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    can you prove that it is anonymous?
    I’m not sure I understand the question? You’re asking me if the peer-review process in general is anonymous or just in this particular instance? In either case, I’m not sure what sort of proof you’re looking for?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Allegations_of_bias_and_suppression

    This wiki article outlines one of the shortcommings with peer review, it is in keeping with the alleged manipulation of date as highlighted by this thread.
    With respect, that is merely someone’s opinion. Peer-review obviously has it’s weaknesses (reviewers are only human after all), but it’s the best system we’ve got.


  • #134
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    I have to say that I now agree with djpbarry that there is now conclusive evidence that climate change is, after all , man made.

    Thankfully its not the actual climate which has been changed by man, but the temperature records coming out of the university of East Anglia which have been changed by man.

    To your " I'd add "no one was meant to find out that they have been cooking the books".

    I've added in one of the quotes from the plethora of evidence available and which seems to support the statement that the evidence was tampered with to "hide the decline".


  • #135
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ok, I’m getting tired of this nonsense. This thread is quickly descending into farce, so this is the last time I’m going to say this.

    I have no problem with people discussing these emails, but if a claim is made, it must be supported by evidence (as per the forum charter). I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that soapboxing is not tolerated on this or any other boards.ie forum.

    Infractions will follow if this warning goes unheeded.

    I've added in one of the quotes as you requested. I'm sorry if you think it's "nonsense" and, if so, I can't agree.


  • #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »

    With respect, that is merely someone’s opinion. Peer-review obviously has it’s weaknesses (reviewers are only human after all), but it’s the best system we’ve got.

    That's correct!

    But when most of the reviewers are batting for the same side, the opposition get crowded out!


  • #137
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Climate change, slimate change! hype-hype-hype. Everyone is on the bandwagon now because - hey it's a great way of shafting Joe public with more taxes, stealthily or otherwise. The Earth goes true it's natural cycle, examination of core samples have shown this repeated cycle. Cool Down, Warm up and vice-versa etc,etc. We are due a Magnetic Pole Reversal soon, this happens every 26,000 years or so. The magnetic poles are increasingly 'wandering', again this is indicative of an increase chance of a polar shift. This is all part of the Earth's cycles, but of course you won't win lucrative research funds and prestige for this now will you.


  • #138
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    I've added in one of the quotes from the plethora of evidence available and which seems to support the statement that the evidence was tampered with to "hide the decline".
    That little snippet has popped up a number of times on this thread, as well as most of the blogs that have been linked to, but as yet, I don’t believe anyone has proffered an explanation for its meaning?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    But when most of the reviewers are batting for the same side, the opposition get crowded out!
    Are you suggesting that there are legitimate scientific ‘counter-arguments’ against the AGW theory that are being consistently rejected for publication? Because it seems that is what you are implying.


  • #139
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    medicman2009 wrote: »
    Climate change, slimate change! hype-hype-hype.
    Apparently, using a bold font wasn’t sufficient. Do I need to use a neon sign before people will read this?
    medicman2009 wrote: »
    We are due a Magnetic Pole Reversal soon, this happens every 26,000 years or so. The magnetic poles are increasingly 'wandering', again this is indicative of an increase chance of a polar shift. This is all part of the Earth's cycles, but of course you won't win lucrative research funds and prestige for this now will you.
    No, nobody researches things like that. That’s why we know about it.


  • #140
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that there are legitimate scientific ‘counter-arguments’ against the AGW theory that are being consistently rejected for publication? Because it seems that is what you are implying.

    Please look at these videos, (first of four) which rejects "global warming" and some of it's findings were ridiculed at time of publication.
    The first of four parts where Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI


  • #141
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that there are legitimate scientific ‘counter-arguments’ against the AGW theory that are being consistently rejected for publication? Because it seems that is what you are implying.
    Please look at these videos, (first of four) which rejects "global warming" and some of it's findings were ridiculed at time of publication.
    I'm not sure how that answers my question?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'm not sure how that answers my question?
    The videos in question (despite not being directly connected to "climategate") do demonstrate (further on) the ridicule that sceptics endured while trying to explain their opposition to the accepted reality of climate change.


  • #143
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The videos in question (despite not being directly connected to "climategate") do demonstrate (further on) the ridicule that sceptics endured while trying to explain their opposition to the accepted reality of climate change.
    You’re losing me at this point. I’ve watched the first one (I don’t have time right now to watch them all) and I’m not seeing any ‘ridicule’? I’m not seeing a terribly convincing argument either. How does this provide an argument against the peer-review process?


  • #144
    hiwayman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭hiwayman


    I've read this on a few blogs and it's the reason I believe there has been an apparent consensus among scientists. ie.(vast majority of scientists support the AGW position) Also it shows that the science has been contaminated and is not to be trusted.
    That doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean that the science is far from settled!
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5565331/green-totalitarianism.thtml
    Here are Phil Jones, Director of the Hadley Centre’s Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University and Michael Mann, creator of the infamous (and false) ‘hockey stick curve’ that underpinned AGW theory, discussing how to suppress the work of AGW sceptics, including changing the peer-review rules to do so:
    In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
    "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


  • #145
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    hiwayman wrote: »
    I've read this on a few blogs and it's the reason I believe there has been an apparent consensus among scientists. ie.(vast majority of scientists support the AGW position) Also it shows that the science has been contaminated and is not to be trusted.
    What do you mean by "contaminated" here? Are you really suggesting that because one university is guilty of less-than respectable practices that every other research unit is also guilty of the same and whose research must also be discrediteD?
    hiwayman wrote: »
    That doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean that the science is far from settled!
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5565331/green-totalitarianism.thtml
    Please do not just reference links - but also discuss. Do you really expect anyone to take seriously an article entitled "green totalitarianism?


  • #146
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    On the "decline" mentioned in the emails, and code.

    I think they were using tree rings as a proxy for temperature until 1960 when the rings seemed to show a decline not shown in the measured readings. In the graphs for tree rings they then put in the measured temperatures, seeing the delcline as a bug I suppose.

    Since we have comprehensive measurements since 1960 you can see why they might have wanted to do that legitimately. Why use a proxy if you have readings?

    That said it may indicate that we are seeing some urban heat effects in the readings since 1960 and that the tree proxies are showing something.

    I dont know.


  • #147
    hiwayman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭hiwayman


    [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Dermot/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]heretic.jpg?w=500&h=349


  • #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You’re losing me at this point. I’ve watched the first one (I don’t have time right now to watch them all) and I’m not seeing any ‘ridicule’? I’m not seeing a terribly convincing argument either. How does this provide an argument against the peer-review process?

    Have a look at the second one from about 5:30, where a "minority report" was ridiculed by opponants.


  • #149
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    this reminds me a bit of both the WMD's debate and the Baleout Debate

    here again we have a 'Consensus' amongst theInteligence/FinancialClimate Experts being shown up as a tissue of lies manipulated to say whatever they want to say, and yet they are going to go to Copenhagen and push through 'Emergency' measures to curb a percieved threat to our wellbeing

    there seem to be a raft of vested interests decrying the leaks and trying to convince us that there is nothing untowards going on, I have yet to read anything from DJPbarry on this thread or a few more of the ones I read that actually give a straight answer without either spinning it back with some obscure little detail of flatly dismissing it as 'we dont know all the details' HEY we dont know much about the changes in the earths climate either, dosent stop a lot of ye claimin to be experts



    and on a couple of things thatr reallllllllllly pissed me off

    'The hackers broke the law and we shouldnt take their word that this its the truth'

    I suppose ye would have thrown Woodward and Bernstein in Jail too for their despicable act of publishing Leaked documentation, and spreading lies about nice mr Nixon.



    Also we have a fairly good Idea of where and how many Vineyards were in Medieval england, the Domesday book lists 46, subsequent census show a decline to 9 by the 19th century


  • #150
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Have a look at the second one from about 5:30, where a "minority report" was ridiculed by opponants.
    It sounds to me like people are laughing with him? But anyway, this is skirting around the issue – how exactly does this lend weight to the claim that the peer-review process is biased?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It sounds to me like people are laughing with him? But anyway, this is skirting around the issue – how exactly does this lend weight to the claim that the peer-review process is biased?
    The fact that they were forced to write a "minority report" speaks volumes, i.e. they were unable to get their points across in the main report.


Advertisement