General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
. I have been watching this "science" for 30 years. Watching them fake and alter data for 20. The "science" did not hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

You are a fucking imbecile that cant accept the fact that there was no science behind GWT at all.

So I reiterate
Cool, why don't you just submit a paper that proves them wrong, you'll get more money and press than you know what to do with.

Are you still claiming that the global cooling "consensus" is anything like that that AGW has acheived?

Last edited by Patriotic Eagle; 12-09-2009 at 04:52 PM..
Old 12-09-2009, 04:34 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1216  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
What they were reacting to was the claim that such data manipulation and selection is commonplace.
Calling this the greatest scientific fraud in 223 years is pretty sensationalist if not outright ignorant. I'm not really sure how you could reach such a conclusion if you put any effort into understanding the context of these e-mails.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
My wife, as a member of AAAS in the field of ecology, tells me that these modeling techniques have been "thrown away" by modern scientists as well as the "hockey stick" data. It isn't used because in more advanced models and with recent data is simple doesn't produce accurate results.
I'm not really sure what she's referring to but if she means newer computer climate modeling programs have replaced the old, then sure. No one is claiming that we're able to predict climate change 100% or that we will be able to anytime soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Real scientists junked a lot of this years ago but are walking on eggshells because they need their grants.
Most climate scientists agree that the conclusions reached by earlier modeling methods are still basically correct, although they could be inaccurate.
Old 12-09-2009, 04:49 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1217  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
What they were reacting to was the claim that such data manipulation and selection is commonplace.

My wife, as a member of AAAS in the field of ecology, tells me that these modeling techniques have been "thrown away" by modern scientists as well as the "hockey stick" data. It isn't used because in more advanced models and with recent data is simple doesn't produce accurate results.
Real scientists junked a lot of this years ago but are walking on eggshells because they need their grants.

Far from being junked, the hockey stick hypothesis was just reinforced by a different set of data a few months ago in a big paper in Nature.
Old 12-09-2009, 05:14 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1218  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Calling this the greatest scientific fraud in 223 years is pretty sensationalist if not outright ignorant. I'm not really sure how you could reach such a conclusion if you put any effort into understanding the context of these e-mails.
The greatest fraud involving (if not commended by) AAAS? I think it's pretty high up there considering the wide-reading political and corporate actions resulting from the conclusions.


Quote:
I'm not really sure what she's referring to but if she means newer computer climate modeling programs have replaced the old, then sure. No one is claiming that we're able to predict climate change 100% or that we will be able to anytime soon.
My understanding is that many of the data types, feedbacks and interactions are not used in the way they were in many of these studies. In particular, her lab works with tree-rings and soil chemistry and she specializes in nutrient cycling. So she may not have an "expert" opinion on the conclusions of the data but she's certainly qualified to scrutinize the conclusions drawn from flora as stated.

Quote:
Most climate scientists agree that the conclusions reached by earlier modeling methods are still basically correct, although they could be inaccurate.
I disagree. This is a shifty statement.
Of the atmospheric scientists I know at the Desert Research Institute, I'd say all but one of them agree that the Earth is warming. However, none of them would agree that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant cause. At least half are nearly convinced that water vapor and inconclusive interactions with cloud formation are the primary culprit. One is pretty adamant that the reduction in large particulate emissions is partly to blame.

EDIT: A pretty active community is forming at www.climateaudit.org where you can find some very big names in the field.
__________________
09 F9
Old 12-09-2009, 05:21 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1219  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Far from being junked, the hockey stick hypothesis was just reinforced by a different set of data a few months ago in a big paper in Nature.

What specifically about the "hockey stick" conclusion was collaborated?
Link to paper?

EDIT: IIRC, Nature is in a bit of a tussle as well as accusations surface regarding their rejection of papers that refuted previous anthropogenic climate change papers.
__________________
09 F9

Last edited by Zangmonkey; 12-09-2009 at 05:29 PM..
Old 12-09-2009, 05:24 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1220  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
What specifically about the "hockey stick" conclusion was collaborated?
Link to paper?

EDIT: IIRC, Nature is in a bit of a tussle as well as accusations surface regarding their rejection of papers that refuted previous anthropogenic climate change papers.

Can't link to full paper, requires a subscription.

Abstract:
Quote:
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
Citation is Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Sept 2008, vol 105, pg 13252. Authors, Mann et al.

Cliffs: Discount the tree ring data if you want, the other proxy data comes to the same conclusion.
Old 12-09-2009, 05:41 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1221  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
What the hell Zang? You're usually not this stupid. The only people who believe the hockey stick graph was disproved are those who read blogs instead of peer-reviewed climate papers.

By the way, the IPCC recently announced that this decade has been the hottest decade on record. But they must just trying to cover for their buddies. The Great Science Conspiracy has us!!!
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 12-09-2009, 06:44 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1222  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Are you still claiming that the global cooling "consensus" is anything like that that AGW has acheived?

Yeah, you missed an earlier part of this thread where he was trying to argue that scientists really pushed for this "global cooling" issue in the 1970s. Of course he was too drunk back then to remember it was ONE journal paper which suggested there might be cooling ahead (based on solar variation and volcanic activity) which the media then turned into a mess. That ONE article was largely discredited by the scientific community from the get-go and there was never any significant scientific body which accepted its conclusions.

Cue TheMorlock: "LOL 5C RISE, AMRITE?".

Good times.
__________________
TheMorlock: "i have a 140+ IQ"

OH RLY?

TheMorlock: "Any atmosphere will trap heat. the CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is a RESULT of the high temps"

Ahahahahaha
Old 12-09-2009, 06:51 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1223  

topcat989
 
topcat989's Avatar
 
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
Old 12-09-2009, 08:12 PM topcat989 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1224  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
I'm just curious if anybody read the APS links I posted (along with esteemed signatures) as well as the LIndszen letter.

Yeah, I read them. Interesting enough. They're not actually from the APS though. From the APS website:

Quote:
On Thursday and Friday, December 3 and 4, a number of APS members received email messages from Bob Austin, Hal Lewis, Will Happer, Larry Gould, and Roger Cohen regarding Climate Change.
Please be assured that these were not official APS messages, nor were they sent with APS knowledge or approval.
A number of our members have complained about this intrusion. We are continuing to investigate how the senders obtained APS member email addresses.
If you have additional questions, please contact us via webmaster@aps.org.
Best regards,
Cherry Murray
APS President
Kate Kirby
APS Executive Officer
In fact, the APS voted NOT to reject their 2007 statement.

Quote:
Dear APS Member:
As you may have already heard, the Council of the American Physical Society, at its meeting on November 8, overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society's 2007 statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The original motion, made by councilor Robert Austin at the May 1 Council meeting, had been tabled to allow time for further consideration.
Subsequently, in my role as APS president, I appointed an ad hoc committee chaired by MIT physicist and APS Fellow Daniel Kleppner to review the 2007 climate statement and the proposed wording in the Austin petition and to advise the presidential line on what actions to take. A more complete history of the petition and subsequent actions were detailed in a front page article in the October 2009 APS News, sent to all APS members.
Climate Statement Gets Renewed Scrutiny
In that APS News article, members who wished to express their input on the matter were encouraged to contact their councilor before the November Council meeting. I thank the over 200 APS members who personally sent me their thoughtful input. A number of councilors received hundreds of emails as well.
The Kleppner committee recommended to me that the current APS statement be allowed to stand, but advised that it be referred to the Society's Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) for possible improvements in clarity and tone. The Council voted to follow this recommendation, and POPA has been tasked with this request. After POPA has done its review, the statement and any clarifications will be posted for member comment and input in advance of the report back from POPA to Council at the April, 2010 Council meeting.
Kleppner Report (APS Members Only)
Old 12-09-2009, 10:53 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1225  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
clap your hands and global warming will live!!!
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 12-09-2009, 11:27 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1226  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
clap your hands and global warming will live!!!

Quote:
So when exactly did AGW become a "foregone conclusion?" It's been a topic of discussion in the literature for decades, and was not at all universally accepted back in the 70s. The consensus has grown appreciably since then. In light of that, when did they start faking data? How'd the consensus grow if the thesis was so obviously wrong?
.
Old 12-09-2009, 11:32 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1227  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
The consensus has grown on faked data.
Consensus /= fact

Ignoring challenges based on fact is what priests do.
So put on a backwards white collar already.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 12-09-2009, 11:40 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1228  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Yeah, I read them. Interesting enough. They're not actually from the APS though. From the APS website:



In fact, the APS voted NOT to reject their 2007 statement.

Right, they (at least the one I received) was send by Hal Lewis.
In particular, I was not advised of the meeting to revise the statement in November so I don't know what they sought to amend it to.

The big problem I see is the "black and white"-ness that's being forced here.
I do not support a statement which suggests warming isn't occurring; however I would support a statement which rejects an alarmist stance.
__________________
09 F9
Old 12-10-2009, 08:43 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1229  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
What the hell Zang? You're usually not this stupid. The only people who believe the hockey stick graph was disproved are those who read blogs instead of peer-reviewed climate papers.

By the way, the IPCC recently announced that this decade has been the hottest decade on record. But they must just trying to cover for their buddies. The Great Science Conspiracy has us!!!

There are peer-reviewed papers with outline the evidence for a medieval warming period. This anomaly was present in the "hockey stick" dataset but was truncated and/or attenuated because it was "irrelevant" to the scope of the paper.

This sort of behavior does, in fact, happen all the time in wide-ranges of sciences. The scale of charts changes dynamically.
Maybe it isn't intended to deceive but the wide audience doesn't view it in the same way.

Additionally, I'd be curious to see what the IPCC's range of "record" is.

Did I say disproved? I think I said "junked" because the representation of the hockey stick as a figure is not an accurate representation of the data.
__________________
09 F9
Old 12-10-2009, 08:48 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1230  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:30 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.