But I wanted to believe it so badly!

[TimC]

The quickest fix for climate change is to stop overpopluation. World population has more than doubled in our lifetime. I vote we kill anyone over 50 years old and free the world of these useless people. It's a start.

[Deathpig]

You realize that Penn State University is Professor Mike "Hockeystick" Mann's base of operations, right? This is like having Haliburton, Exxon, and Chevron conclude 'independent' enquiries clearing BP of any wrongdoing for the accident in the gulf.

 

I think the title of the thread is strangely ironic. Who here is the one desperate to believe?

 

 

Here's a link to the second inquiry that you talked about:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010...red-malpractice

 

Notice the last question in the FAQ:

 

Is the report a whitewash?

 

Some will say so. Oxburgh has links to groups that will profit from policies to tackle global warming, which critics argue is a conflict of interest. The reality of global warming, however, was never in doubt, and the enquiry was concerned with the behaviour of a handful of scientists. The review took less than a month to complete, though Oxburgh says it was thorough.

 

So this guy goes into the enquiry already decided that global warming wasn't in doubt, and with potential business conflict of interest anyway, and amazingly finds his global warming co-conspirators free from guilt. This doesn't even pass the smell test.

[The Irish Doggy]

Three Strikes and you're out?

 

And that summarizes it, if people are hell bent on wanting to believe a conspiracy and have the political loyalty to deny, common sense and logic gets thrown out the window and no mountain of evidence is ever going to convince one otherwise.

 

 

The Review team

The Independent Climate Change Email Review is being conducted by an expert team, led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE. The Review team has more than 100 years’ collective expertise of scientific research methodology and a wide range of scientific backgrounds.

 

None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

Interesting.

[bushwacked]

You realize that Penn State University is Professor Mike "Hockeystick" Mann's base of operations, right? This is like having Haliburton, Exxon, and Chevron conclude 'independent' enquiries clearing BP of any wrongdoing for the accident in the gulf.

 

That's just a bit of a reach in yer analogy there. Was the guy you refer to involved in Climategate or the inquiry for that matter? Why do you think they use Scientists in these inquires? Not because it's part of a wild conspiracy.

 

Would you like to see Kentucky Fried Chicken's Research and Development team come to the same conclusion?

Edited July 8, 2010 by bushwacked

[evil_gop_liars]

Would you like to see Kentucky Fried Chicken's Research and Development team come to the same conclusion?

 

Original or extra crispy..

[Kid Cid]

You realize that Penn State University is Professor Mike "Hockeystick" Mann's base of operations, right? This is like having Haliburton, Exxon, and Chevron conclude 'independent' enquiries clearing BP of any wrongdoing for the accident in the gulf.

Just a quick question. Have you ever done academic research at a Research Level I university? I doubt it because if you had you would realize that the harshest critics of any of this type of work are your peers in the field. What the naysayers and conspiracy theorists are pointing to as corruption is really the process of intellectual inquiry and peer review at work. It isn't always pretty and often becomes politicized but the fact remains that when the dust settles, the truth of the matter will be arrived at.

 

This is at the core of scientific methodology. An idea is proposed and it is poked at until it either stands on its own merits or deflates from being punctured by all the sticks poking at it. The media is trying to sensationalize a process that could take years or decades to finally work itself out. The fact remains that the majority of us here at the Huddle are not climatologists and we don't have a clue about what the data means. Here is what we actually know:

 

 

1. Data has been gathered that points to a warming trend in the earths average temperature.

2. Computer models based on this data show that weather patterns will become more chaotic and less predictable based on this warming trend.

3. A theory has been proposed that humans are responsible for the trend.

4. There are factions in the scientific community that support this theory.

5. There are factions in the scientific community that dispute this theory.

 

 

That is it. Anything else that someone claims to know or not know is bulldiaper dirt. While I would never say that a conspiracy can't happen, people are people after all and will succumb to greed early and often, I would say that the system will prove itself correct over time and that any hand wringing or blustering by a lay person is just a bunch of hot air.

[Deathpig]

No, I stick to my original point. This entire thing was to clear the name of the institution. This wasn't a referendum on global warming. It seemed to me like you were making the point it was.

 

I don't consider that analogy a stretch, when the whole issue for the 'skeptics' is the fact that a minority of scientists came to the conclusion that AGW must be real, and then shouted down any attempts to actually employ the scientific method to prove or disprove their claim, outside of the cabal that fervently believed it was real. Now we have an enquiry that basically concludes there was no fraud because the same scientists were consistent with their flawed methodology-- the enquiries coming from the university (that wants to avoid a black eye) and the same cloistered peers that share their views.

 

But the real issue is that the 'science' behind global warming is a set of scientists checking instruments and recording surface tempuratures. It's not combined with physicists, cosmologists, or anyone else. They cherry-picked data to make their findings (see also, Hockystick graph) and revised history (see also, MWP and LIA deletion from the historical tempurature record) but didn't have a scientific reason to point to for the now apparent warming. This is a major point-- they've based their entire scientific theory on correlation, not causation.

 

Enter carbon dioxide, essentially a trace element in our atmosphere. Of course, they haven't proven 1) that the planet is irreversibly warming, as their data isn't coinciding with other tempurature data collection systems (like, you know, recorded tempuratures in cities around the world over centuries), nor 2) that CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas at the amounts that it exists in our atmosphere, nor 3) that microscopic fluxuations of the trace amounts of CO2 could possibly be responsible for planet-wide warming, nevermind 4) that humans are solely responsible for the fluxuations of the trace amounts of CO2.

 

In their attempt to link causation, they didn't do any actual work. They just put their house of cards on another house of cards, then declared victory.

 

 

Just read this, it does a pretty good job of concisely summing up:

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/mu...port/page2.html

 

It does a pretty good job of trying to explain the lack of hard, provable, testable, actual science.

[bushwacked]

Just a quick question. Have you ever done academic research at a Research Level I university? I doubt it because if you had you would realize that the harshest critics of any of this type of work are your peers in the field. What the naysayers and conspiracy theorists are pointing to as corruption is really the process of intellectual inquiry and peer review at work. It isn't always pretty and often becomes politicized but the fact remains that when the dust settles, the truth of the matter will be arrived at.

 

This is at the core of scientific methodology. An idea is proposed and it is poked at until it either stands on its own merits or deflates from being punctured by all the sticks poking at it. The media is trying to sensationalize a process that could take years or decades to finally work itself out. The fact remains that the majority of us here at the Huddle are not climatologists and we don't have a clue about what the data means. Here is what we actually know:

 

 

1. Data has been gathered that points to a warming trend in the earths average temperature.

2. Computer models based on this data show that weather patterns will become more chaotic and less predictable based on this warming trend.

3. A theory has been proposed that humans are responsible for the trend.

    

4. There are factions in the scientific community that support this theory.

5. There are factions in the scientific community that dispute this theory.

 

 

That is it. Anything else that someone claims to know or not know is bulldiaper dirt. While I would never say that a conspiracy can't happen, people are people after all and will succumb to greed early and often, I would say that the system will prove itself correct over time and that any hand wringing or blustering by a lay person is just a bunch of hot air.

 

Great post, and while I realize I'm veering off the debate of the "scandal" I still think this is worthy of pointing out:. While the bolded part above is accurate; this really gives legitimate insight into what the scientific community thinks in more detail: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/...rvey/index.html

 

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

 

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

 

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

 

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

 

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

 

To believe that 97% of climatologists are part of a vast conspiracy is, IMO, close to fake moon landing, holocaust denying, earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy proportions. And doubting the Science and believing the conspiracy obviously relates to denying the findings of the three independent inquires into "Climategate."

[Perchoutofwater]

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

 

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

 

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

 

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

 

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that the temperature has risen since the dark ages. There is a lot of questions how much the if any the temperature is above the peak interglacial periods. I find it interesting that it is geologists that are best suited to determine this, and they have the lowest level of belief. Yes, it is much hotter on average than it was in the dark ages (mini-ice age), but if we look at long term data we can see we are following a pretty predictable glacial/interglacial cycle. That is the reason, I have no question the temperature has risen since the pre 1800 period, but really do question how much if any impact man has on it, as most of the interglacial periods were prior to the discovery of fire.

[Azazello1313]

To believe that 97% of climatologists are part of a vast conspiracy is, IMO, close to fake moon landing, holocaust denying, earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy proportions. And doubting the Science and believing the conspiracy obviously relates to denying the findings of the three independent inquires into "Climategate."

 

total and complete bullcrap from you, as usual. those two statements you laid out (the earth is warmer than it was 200 years ago, and human activity has had some impact), yeah, most people agree with those. those broad statements are not the issue here. the issue is how data was hidden, cherry-picked, and fudged by a small but very influential group of "scientists" who put aside the rigors of the scientific method in favor of issue-advocacy. the emails in this respect speak for themselves. no skeptic that I know of has ever spoken of a "grand conspiracy". it's nothing more than plain old confirmation bias, selection bias, groupthink, and a willingness to put advocacy above science. and yes, it calls the details of so many of their findings and predictions into question. the surface temperature records, for example, are so riddled with errors and questions -- yet all the raw data remains hidden. the infamous "hockey stick" graph is now completely discredited. these guys have made a big mess, and no amount of whitewashing by "independent" inquiries can change that.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Azazello1313

[cre8tiff]

total and complete bullcrap from you, as usual. those two statements you laid out (the earth is warmer than it was 200 years ago, and human activity has had some impact), yeah, most people agree with those. those broad statements are not the issue here. the issue is how data was hidden, cherry-picked, and fudged by a small but very influential group of "scientists" who put aside the rigors of the scientific method in favor of issue-advocacy. the emails in this respect speak for themselves. no skeptic that I know of has ever spoken of a "grand conspiracy". it's nothing more than plain old confirmation bias, selection bias, groupthink, and a willingness to put advocacy above science. and yes, it calls the details of so many of their findings and predictions into question. the surface temperature records, for example, are so riddled with errors and questions -- yet all the raw data remains hidden. the infamous "hockey stick" graph is now completely discredited. these guys have made a big mess, and no amount of whitewashing by "independent" inquiries can change that.

 

Hang on a minute, so you AGREE that humans have negatively impacted the temperature of the earth?

 

And the only problem is with the research methods? That is not what I have gotten from all of your previous posts...

[bushwacked]

I don't think anyone would disagree that the temperature has risen since the dark ages. There is a lot of questions how much the if any the temperature is above the peak interglacial periods. I find it interesting that it is geologists that are best suited to determine this, and they have the lowest level of belief.

 

 

Are you claiming weather people and oil geologists are best suited to determine what temperatures were 100 of thousands of years ago compared to climatologists?

 

 

 

those two statements you laid out (the earth is warmer than it was 200 years ago, and human activity has had some impact), yeah, most people agree with those.

 

Most people? Really? Apparently not this guy

 

 

but really do question how much if any impact man has on it,

 

I didn't lay out the statements and a key word in the question was significant impact not some impact; which is a pretty major difference you are glossing over.

 

What are you basing yer most people claim on anyway? Here is a 2-year old survey I found.:

 

 

t further found that about half of Americans or 47 percent believe global warming is the result of human activity but views on the subject reflect a sharp partisan divide. It said 27 percent of Republicans hold this view versus 58 percent of Democrats.

 

So this is where the word some impact, unlike the previous word significant; actually applies. Contrary to your statement, there is a rather large gap between what experts and the general public thinks. Furthermore, barely over 1 in 4 Repubs think some compared to 97% of experts thinking significant.

 

And I'm full of bullcrap for claiming political loyalty has something to do with doubting the Science huh?

Edited July 8, 2010 by bushwacked

[TimC]

Are you are claiming weather people and oil geologists are best suited to determine what temperatures where 100 of thousands of years ago compared to climatologists?

 

And...there's yer flaw, Mr. Smarty Pants Hippie. The Earth is only 6,023 years old, so how could weather exist 100 of thousands of years ago?

[SEC=UGA]

And...there's yer flaw, Mr. Smarty Pants Hippie. The Earth is only 6,023 years old, so how could weather exist 100 of thousands of years ago?

 

Jesus's T-rex was named Ralph.

[evil_gop_liars]

And...there's yer flaw, Mr. Smarty Pants Hippie. The Earth is only 6,023 years old, so how could weather exist 100 of thousands of years ago?

 

Giddy up Rexy, we have lepers to save.

[TimC]

Jesus's T-rex was named Ralph.

 

Look, I'll keep it simple for the hippies.

 

The Earth started out at 0 degrees at Year Zero. It now averages around 70 degrees at Year 6,000. For simplicity sake for the hippies, let's just say that's +10 degrees every 1,000 years. God makes sure we can all survive at the temperature He sets for us. So, in the year 3,000, the average temp will be 80 degrees and we'll all still be comfy.

[SEC=UGA]

Look, I'll keep it simple for the hippies.

 

The Earth started out at 0 degrees at Year Zero. It now averages around 70 degrees at Year 6,000. For simplicity sake for the hippies, let's just say that's +10 degrees every 1,000 years. God makes sure we can all survive at the temperature He sets for us. So, in the year 3,000, the average temp will be 80 degrees and we'll all still be comfy.

 

Can he make a T-Rex for me, too?

[TimC]

Can he make a T-Rex for me, too?

 

Only if you promise to love it and hold it and squeeze it and call it George.

[Duchess Jack]

And I'm full of bullcrap for claiming political loyalty has something to do with doubting the Science huh?

 

sure are. name one time that has actually happened. go back thousands of years if you need to - include all nations and governments - heck, you could even include the Catholic Church.

 

Find one instance. I challange you.

[TimC]

Only if you promise to love it and hold it and squeeze it and call it George.

 

Wait, my bad...I thought this was the porn thread.

[SEC=UGA]

Wait, my bad...I thought this was the porn thread.

 

 

Good one.

[Big John]

Only if you promise to love it and hold it and squeeze it and call it George.

Bugs Bunny

[Perchoutofwater]

Bushwanker, how do we go about determining the temperature 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago? What branch of science specializes in this? Is it the branch where more than half do not believe the earth is hotter now than it has been in the past?

[tazinib1]

The quickest fix for climate change is to stop overpopluation. World population has more than doubled in our lifetime. I vote we kill anyone over 50 years old and free the world of these useless people. It's a start.

 

Chemtrails

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Azazello1313]

And I'm full of bullcrap for claiming political loyalty has something to do with doubting the Science huh?

 

no, you're full of crap for thinking that only goes one way.