Lady.hawke

Climategate

Recommended Posts

It seems that Penn State is taking their star professor's participation in Climategate seriously:

 

Climategate: Penn State Professor Mann under investigation

 

And to the person who keeps accusing me of refusing to read links, this is how it should be done. I have at least given a short description as to what may be found at the link. I will never pay any attention to a post that is only a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you - most of you - that do not seem to understand that the release of these emails is a huge debunking of Global Warming resurrected as Climate Change, the Arizona Sports Fans seem to have focused on the issues:

 

Climategate?

 

This is not going away, no matter how much the American press chooses to ignore it.

 

And to those who have opined that we are guilty of excessive carbon dioxide omissions and the unproven consequences of such actions - putting aside the probable faulty science - what do you suppose feeds the plants? Should we all stop breathing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those of you - most of you - that do not seem to understand that the release of these emails is a huge debunking of Global Warming resurrected as Climate Change, the Arizona Sports Fans seem to have focused on the issues:

 

Climategate?

 

This is not going away, no matter how much the American press chooses to ignore it.

 

And to those who have opined that we are guilty of excessive carbon dioxide omissions and the unproven consequences of such actions - putting aside the probable faulty science - what do you suppose feeds the plants? Should we all stop breathing?

This is your third conspiracy theory in as many weeks.

 

1. The Obama citizenship conspiracy

2. The government / top brass vengeance on the SEALS conspiracy

3. Climate change is all a scientoliberal conspiracy

 

How do you sleep at night when it's pretty obvious that the Illuminati must be hunkered down in your garden shed waiting to ambush you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone has an agenda. The truth is usually in between.

Harry Caray said it best: there are three sides to every story; what person A says, what person B says, and the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is your third conspiracy theory in as many weeks.

 

1. The Obama citizenship conspiracy

2. The government / top brass vengeance on the SEALS conspiracy

3. Climate change is all a scientoliberal conspiracy

 

How do you sleep at night when it's pretty obvious that the Illuminati must be hunkered down in your garden shed waiting to ambush you?

 

 

Nice try. This is not a substantive answer to anything I have written.

 

Killing the messenger does not discount the message.

 

How about you find some facts to discount all that you deem to be my conspiracy theories. You cannot because they do not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice try. This is not a substantive answer to anything I have written.

 

Killing the messenger does not discount the message.

 

How about you find some facts to discount all that you deem to be my conspiracy theories. You cannot because they do not exist.

Many of us keep on doing exactly that but you either refuse to read the evidence we post or you flat out ignore any post that gainsays yours, preferring to accuse us of "shooting the messenger".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that Penn State is taking their star professor's participation in Climategate seriously:

 

Climategate: Penn State Professor Mann under investigation

 

And to the person who keeps accusing me of refusing to read links, this is how it should be done. I have at least given a short description as to what may be found at the link. I will never pay any attention to a post that is only a link.

Well, it seems that he is not under investigation, but that an inquiry has been launched. A subtle, but distinct difference. This is from the Centre Daily Times, the local Penn State newspaper.

 

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1652899.html

 

GLOBAL WARMING: Skeptics allege deception

PSU to look at climate e-mails

Chris Rosenblum- crosenbl@centredaily.com

Penn State has announced it will hold an inquiry into controversial climate change emails involving a university professor.

 

The professor in question, Michael Mann, said he has “nothing to hide” and welcomes the scrutiny.

 

Recently, hackers stole and released more than 1,000 e-mails sent and received by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University

of East Anglia in Britain. Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, was one of the e-mail recipients.

 

Critics of climate change have latched onto a few of the e-mails as evidence that Mann and other climate researchers hid data about global temperature drops and exaggerated warming trends.

 

One e-mail, from the East Anglia research unit director to Mann and two other scientists, particularly irks skeptics. Dated Nov. 16, 1999, it reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

 

Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers said an inquiry is a “precursor to any investigation.” A faculty committee will examine about 300 emails concerning Mann “to determine if there’s any merit to the allegations, and if they warrant further review,” she said.

 

Mann has called the charges a “smear campaign” to discredit climate change research before the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference next week in Copenhagen.

 

But given the ruckus the e-mails have raised, he doesn’t blame Penn State for looking into the matter.

 

“All they’re doing, which is actually what I would be doing, and which I fully support, is they’re collecting facts,” he said Monday. “They’re trying to get to the bottom of this, as to whether there’s any substance to the various accusations made against me. As I have nothing to hide, I fully endorse their actions.”

 

Mann said the “trick” in the e-mail referred to solving a problem, not a deception. He said it referred to how a 1998 Nature journal article incorporated two clearly-labeled sets of historic climate-change statistics — proxy data from 1400 to 1980 and “instrumental” readings after 1980.

 

The “decline,” he said, refers to tree-ring data that East Anglia colleague Keith Briffa ruled out for the 1998 article because of the tree rings’ declining response to temperatures after 1960. While “hide” may not have been the best choice of words, Mann said, it did not signify anything improper.

 

Another controversy centers on an e-mail sent only to Mann. It asked him to delete other e-mails from a researcher — which, he said, he did not do.

 

Penn State policy states that an inquiry is “information-gathering and preliminary fact-finding” to assess whether a formal investigation into research misconduct is necessary. The university partly defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices within the academic community.”

 

Mann said a “fairly exhaustive report” by the National Academy of Sciences in 2006 certified his and other climate scientists’ findings, an assertion backed by Penn State. The report, the university said in a release, “concluded that Mann’s results were sound” and “supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.”

 

Climate change critics, Mann said, lack “science on their side” and “are looking for any distraction that can derail progress on this issue.”

 

“I think the policymakers who are involved in the high-level discussions that are going to take place in Copenhagen aren’t fooled by this sort of nonsense,” Mann said.

 

“They know that there’s nothing on those e-mails that call into question the robust consensus that exists in the scientific community of the reality of the problem and the need to do something to confront it.”

Edited by Kid Cid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

Ladyhawke: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

 

Ursa: You've made your decision then?

 

Ladyhawke: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

 

Ursa: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko:

 

Ladyhawke: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

 

Ursa: You've made your decision then?

 

Ladyhawke: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

 

Ursa: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Arizona Sports Fans. Really? :D

 

Apparently the final arbiter of truth, justice and the paranoid delusional conspiracy theory way . . . :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I love in this debate is that proponents that say that global warming is false and a hoax . . . . how do you justify dumping crap in the air we breathe and the water we drink? A lot of this has to do with contaminants that go into the atmosphere along with carbon.

 

Lady Hawke are you FOR large scale industrial dumping of carcinogens and other potentially deadly toxins onto the enviroment? Are you PRO pollution?

 

FWIW, I dont see any definitive proof on either side to irrefutably settle the argument. To me, I think that pollutants and contiminants in the food and air my kids have to grow up with are negative no matter what the global warming issue may be . . . :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put the conspiracy theries aside and even put aside your opinion on climate change. You think it is ok for scientists to delete e-mails that show that they are intentionally trying to sway public opinion and government into believing something that may not be what the reports and data actually suggest?

 

How do you trust anything these guys say? What they did was wrong and should be reported and acted upon regardless of climate change existing or not existing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Put the conspiracy theries aside and even put aside your opinion on climate change. You think it is ok for scientists to delete e-mails that show that they are intentionally trying to sway public opinion and government into believing something that may not be what the reports and data actually suggest?

 

How do you trust anything these guys say? What they did was wrong and should be reported and acted upon regardless of climate change existing or not existing.

 

From everything I've seen, once you go into the details, the Have to agree here claims seem to be a bunch of crap. Everything seems to be completely taken out of context to rally the right wing base as part of a desperately stupid smear campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the real deal with these emails? Some Megan Foxbags illegally hacked into this place and found all these emails that are evidence some scientists lied? But we know these good citizen hackers didn't change or alter any emails, correct? They had no ulterior motive to hack this place, just discovered them by accident and found it in their duty to turn over ALL the emails to the public intact and unchanged.

 

It's nice to see there are still some crooks out there that care so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what's the real deal with these emails? Some Megan Foxbags illegally hacked into this place and found all these emails that are evidence some scientists lied? But we know these good citizen hackers didn't change or alter any emails, correct? They had no ulterior motive to hack this place, just discovered them by accident and found it in their duty to turn over ALL the emails to the public intact and unchanged.

 

It's nice to see there are still some crooks out there that care so much.

 

Logic and rationale have no place for right wingers and their conspiracy theories that they want to see come to fruition. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I love in this debate is that proponents that say that global warming is false and a hoax . . . . how do you justify dumping crap in the air we breathe and the water we drink? A lot of this has to do with contaminants that go into the atmosphere along with carbon.

 

Lady Hawke are you FOR large scale industrial dumping of carcinogens and other potentially deadly toxins onto the enviroment? Are you PRO pollution?

 

FWIW, I dont see any definitive proof on either side to irrefutably settle the argument. To me, I think that pollutants and contiminants in the food and air my kids have to grow up with are negative no matter what the global warming issue may be . . . :wacko:

 

I don't, I just question if CO2 is a pollutant, particularly since it has been around much longer than we have, it occurs naturally in much greater volume than we produce, and plant life seems to love it. There is a difference between not wanting to jeopardize our economy over something that naturally occurs to a much greater magnitude than we produce, and not wanting any type of environmental controls.

 

You know how much I despise a powerful federal government, and think most everything should be left up to the states. Well, this is one issue I do believe falls squarely in the bailiwick of the federal government. Having said that I think we need to be prudent in our regulation, and in many ways have gone to extremes that do very little to protect the environment and possibly cause backlash against the true environmental cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I love in this debate is that proponents that say that global warming is false and a hoax . . . . how do you justify dumping crap in the air we breathe and the water we drink? A lot of this has to do with contaminants that go into the atmosphere along with carbon.

 

Lady Hawke are you FOR large scale industrial dumping of carcinogens and other potentially deadly toxins onto the enviroment? Are you PRO pollution?

 

FWIW, I dont see any definitive proof on either side to irrefutably settle the argument. To me, I think that pollutants and contiminants in the food and air my kids have to grow up with are negative no matter what the global warming issue may be . . . :wacko:

 

See, this is the ridiculous straw man. If you don't believe in MAN-MADE GW then you think companies should be allowed to pollute, cause cancer, etc. There couldn't possibly be anything in between, could there?

 

I just don't think there's near enough evidence that WE are the cause of warming. The ice on Mars is also melting. We did that? And the fact that no one is willing to back up a second and say "Wait - these guys who have something to gain might have been cooking the books? Peer review might be a joke in this case? Maybe we ought to wait a minute before we go giving our wealth to third world countries via the UN. Just to make sure this is right." is evidence of WAY more hysteria over a cause than anyone who ever worried about whether the obamessiah is a citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it occurs naturally in much greater volume than we produce

 

Yea, when humans didn't habitat the earth, making your point essentially meaningless. CO2 is anomalously high relative to the last 500K years and are completely off-kilter of their cyclical norms.

 

The ice on Mars is also melting.

 

No one is arguing that planets don't undergo natural warming/cooling cycles. You accuse BP of straw manning? :wacko:

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, this is the ridiculous straw man. If you don't believe in MAN-MADE GW then you think companies should be allowed to pollute, cause cancer, etc. There couldn't possibly be anything in between, could there?

 

I just don't think there's near enough evidence that WE are the cause of warming. The ice on Mars is also melting. We did that? And the fact that no one is willing to back up a second and say "Wait - these guys who have something to gain might have been cooking the books? Peer review might be a joke in this case? Maybe we ought to wait a minute before we go giving our wealth to third world countries via the UN. Just to make sure this is right." is evidence of WAY more hysteria over a cause than anyone who ever worried about whether the obamessiah is a citizen.

 

West Virginia I dont think we know enough on EITHER side to make a definitive answer. In the meantime, along with carbon, there is a crapload of other stuff (that IS provided by industry) that goes into what we eat, drink and breathe every day. More than anything, I wish we could re-focus on that issue . .. which I severly doubt anyone can dispute is not good for humans . . .

 

I am just going to bow out of this one . . . as I dont think we can definitively believe in a global warming situation that isnt addressed GLOBALLY and not just by the US, and I cant agree with the righties that say rape and pillage the earth as much as possible and screw the consequences. A lot of what I have problems with predates this issue and has more to do with how the US gubmnet ALLOWS companies certain amounts of toxins they can spew into the atmosphere and water legally so we dont "hurt" their corporate profits . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have 10 minutes to spare, click either the Real Audio or Window's media link to listen to the opening minutes of the show on the Copenhagen Conference. They discuss "Climategate"

The Diane Rehm Show

 

ETA: The Penn State Professor in question, Michael Mann, is a guest on the show.

Edited by billay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
West Virginia I dont think we know enough on EITHER side to make a definitive answer. In the meantime, along with carbon, there is a crapload of other stuff (that IS provided by industry) that goes into what we eat, drink and breathe every day. More than anything, I wish we could re-focus on that issue . .. which I severly doubt anyone can dispute is not good for humans . . .

 

I am just going to bow out of this one . . . as I dont think we can definitively believe in a global warming situation that isnt addressed GLOBALLY and not just by the US, and I cant agree with the righties that say rape and pillage the earth as much as possible and screw the consequences. A lot of what I have problems with predates this issue and has more to do with how the US gubmnet ALLOWS companies certain amounts of toxins they can spew into the atmosphere and water legally so we dont "hurt" their corporate profits . . . .

 

You and I probably agree more than we disagree here. I don't think any company should knowingly be allowed to put harmful items into the air and water.

 

The point I was making is that the science is FAR from decided, no matter how much algore wants to jump up and down an sell appearances for $1200. Before you can correct any problem, you have to know what the optimum mean values are (in this case for temp, etc.) and nobody can say what that is with any certainty. Lefties will scream about the judge that says he can't define pron, but knows it when he sees it, but go along with destroying our economy and lifestyle in pursuit of some ethereal mist they claim will "save the planet". Tell me what it should be and why. Why can't anyone answer that question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and I probably agree more than we disagree here. I don't think any company should knowingly be allowed to put harmful items into the air and water.

 

The point I was making is that the science is FAR from decided, no matter how much algore wants to jump up and down an sell appearances for $1200. Before you can correct any problem, you have to know what the optimum mean values are (in this case for temp, etc.) and nobody can say what that is with any certainty. Lefties will scream about the judge that says he can't define pron, but knows it when he sees it, but go along with destroying our economy and lifestyle in pursuit of some ethereal mist they claim will "save the planet". Tell me what it should be and why. Why can't anyone answer that question?

the real question is can we wait to find out those questions you are asking. Will waiting be a good thingy or a bad thingy. do you really think our way of life, economy and cultural heritage will be destroyed if we try to not pollute so much? that is like saying obama will take all the guns when he is elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.