Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[snuffy]

Nice personal attack.

 

Take it personally if you want, but that's pretty ironic given the steady stream of ad hominums and inuendo you've been posting as evidence.

 

As for the H1N1 I had decided to get the shot after that one post from the guy working at the hospital had valid opinions.

 

Thought you didn't - my mistake. Anyway, you're welcome

 

 

If you don't think the $20 million buck a year that CRU gets for funding peanuts...well good on you for being rich. Please tell me how an oil company loses via pro global warming having power? That is not even an issue if you think about it because there is no net loss to energy companies.

 

There is no net loss to oil if you view their net profits as being aggregated over the lifetime of their finite supply. It would be great if they (and even better we as Albertans) looked at it that way. However, they don't. The industry makes money on the rate of consumption and properly sees any curtailing of that rate as a blow to their profits. Emissions for them are a negative externality, which is why the problem can't be solved by relying on market forces. $20M is a drop in the a bucket.

 

There is a lot of power in science these days versus just plain science. Sigh...I don't like repeating stuff but some people don't hear it. If you sneakily manipulate data, hide data, delete data, refuse to share data, threaten others for having a differing opinion, threaten journals to not publish...this is not science. This is ideological politics. When this comes into play in science you make poor decisions and biased decisions on biased data. If peer review consists of only those people having the same political and ideological leanings...you will get bias. No question!

 

Sorry, but I've been working in science for a long time and this is simply nonsense. It has its perks and I like it, but power? Where are you getting your information from? It's one of the most marginal fields out there, which is why it's dominated by Chinese immigrants. Most everyone else quickly gets fed up with the low pay, long hours, and total lack of job security.

 

What the ideologues that inform you have done is to take a few personal emails and spin them into what they want them to prove. All publications are arguments and there's nothing unusual about sifting data to strengthen your argument. What you fail to remember is that there's a lot of groups out there, and, speaking from experience, that peer review is a bitch. If there was money to be made, it would be going to the group that was saying, "nothing to see here - carry on as normal". However, there simply is no dispute in the peer reviewed literature; there is dispute in the media. What you're suffering from is what Glenn Beck counts on: confirmation bias.

 

 

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

So why can they not explain the last 11 year cooling trend? Understanding our CO2 output is growing almost exponentially?

 

 

 

If you look at all the "proof" they are all assumption studies. Their only real attempt at proof is looking at the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Not only has math not been their best subject...but their main contentions have been proven wrong from the hockey stick graph, to warmest year for both the IPCC and NASA.

 

 

Stop using the 10-11 year 'trend'; this has been explained to you already. A 'trend' is something that doesn't have enough quantifiable results to be considered noteworthy. The 'trend' by the way is ~.1 degree. And to reiterate; if you start your graph out in 1997 or 1999 the results go out the window......and you talk about selective science.

 

And to a couple of other 'facts' posted in this discussion; NASA stated that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the "United States", not the planet. In fact, the hottest year on record according to NASA is 2006 (on the planet)....not 1998.

 

Keep bringing up the argument 'guys like SL' use about 'not caring about the future of your children', and keep posting Sun, you're oozing guilt at this point. It's so bad now you're posting Fox news sources, and you've reached 12 pages.

 

But who knows, maybe the guilt is a good thing. Often times science denying 'Zealots' (which seems a far more appropriate term to describe your fanaticism) come full circle. Perhaps you're like Darth Vader......eventually you'll turn to the good side.

 

Regards,

 

Paul

 

 

[headscan]

Interesting the poll is showing about a 50/50 split. That compares to 70/30 probably nationally last year to 60/40 nationally today.

 

Perception is changing.

A poll on a fly fishing site in Alberta of all places can hardly be considered even remotely statistically accurate. For someone who's always out to debunk "bad science" this should be pretty obvious to you. Unless of course you only take the science you disagree with to task and ignore the bad science you agree with...

[BBBrownie]

Perception is a good description. You perceive the theory to be wrong based upon your buying into the lies laid out by big oil and big industry. Do you think that it is alright to pour oil into the ocean? Probably not, so why is it alright to spew toxins into the air when we instead could look for solutions? It is all greed. And by the way, climate change doesn't imply a warming trend everywhere, it is a CHANGE. Just because NA has a cool couple years doesn't mean that it hasn't warmed elswhere. You appear to have the north american supremist mindset where you figure NA is the center of the world. Even if there is accusation of scandal, the world is rife with scandal, there are always a few that take advantage of situations for personal gain. That definately doesn't nullify the work of many well respected, well reviewed scientists. Do you figure that you know better than these people who have dedicated their lifes work to this, and have enough education to make you blush? Of course there are many uncertainties in the world, we have a long way to go, what makes you so certain that climate change doesn't exist? And beyond the question of climate change I still ask you, how do we have the right to pollute the air? The earth has more than just humans, other forms of pollution are not accepted so why should airborne pollutants be accepted. I am guilty of driving, using plastics, etc, that doesn't mean that I think it is OK, there needs to be a revolution, just like the one in the 70's and 80's where we started to realize that we can't just throw garbage everywhere, dump raw sewage into the oceans (although this still has a long way to go). Some people just buy into the dogma and the greed so easily, it's too bad so many of them are fellow Albertans. Scared of losing their pampered comforts and their fortresses...

 

Roasting weenies on the fires of the apocalypse

[headscan]

There is a lot of power in science these days versus just plain science. Sigh...I don't like repeating stuff but some people don't hear it. If you sneakily manipulate data, hide data, delete data, refuse to share data, threaten others for having a differing opinion, threaten journals to not publish...this is not science. This is ideological politics. When this comes into play in science you make poor decisions and biased decisions on biased data. If peer review consists of only those people having the same political and ideological leanings...you will get bias. No question!

Yeah, a lot like these guys.

[Ricinus]

The earth is NOT cooling that is a blatant falsehood. There are at least a hundred more links other than this one saying the same thing.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate

 

Regards Mike

[canadensis]

The earth is NOT cooling that is a blatant falsehood. There are at least a hundred more links other than this one saying the same thing.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate

 

Regards Mike

 

Well that settles it then...

[Ricinus]

Well that settles it then...

 

Thank You

 

Regards Mike

[adc]

I don't know why they are scared, I wasn't addressing that. I was just pointing out that the ad wasn't a representation of what their projections are, it was a child's dream that had the unrealistic future in it.... you should read...

 

And I never said it was their projection---you also should read........My point is simply the fear monger b.s. that people are being subjected to as vested interests try and have their way......To say that this kind of sensationalism is o.k. in any context---political or scientfic---in my view is just wrong........It's religion of the worst kind----"if you don't believe, you'll burn in hell".......What crap.......In a population of 100 people, there are 1 or 2 leaders and the rest will follow like sheep..........Sure they may stray from the flock from time to time, but they really want someone to show the way so they don't have to find their own........If the leaders are corrupt---Hitler, Rev. Jim Jones, Al Gore---too bad for the sheep......I prefer not to drink the Kool Aid but there are plenty in the line up for it........

[reevesr1]

Interesting the poll is showing about a 50/50 split. That compares to 70/30 probably nationally last year to 60/40 nationally today.

 

Perception is changing.

 

Come on Kevin. You are polling a bunch of mostly well off white guys in a province ruled by oil and gas. Hardly a representative sampling! And 30 votes? Not exactly a statistical juggernaut.

 

This *hit makes me laugh. People lament the "politicization" of the argument, while being full participants in the process. When is the last time you saw anyone on one of these posts look at data from the "opposition" and say, "huh, that makes sense. Do I need to look at this further?" Not bloody likely. In the states it has become a right vs. left issue. In other words a status quo (keep the money where it is now) vs. change for change sake argument. In other, other words 100% political. The against side targets people with similar political beliefs as themselves so they can all pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are for exposing this world wide conspiracy (please!). The for side targets people with similar political beliefs so they can all pat each other on the back and tell each other how they are trying to save the world while the nasty rich people and oil barons try to ruin it. Somewhere in the middle are people truly trying to figure out what is really going on while trying to keep the politics out of it. Good luck to them. The extremes of the for and against sides will do what they can to keep that from happening.

[rehsifylf]

The same tactic the global warming advocates have been using all along; fear and gross exaggeration based on a percieved outcome that they are trying to match data to.

 

Yes.

 

Why can't we go back to the good old nuclear winter scare tactics. Maybe if we do drills at school where children hide under their desks to protect them from Global Warming, that will make the parents feel better (and would be as effective as trying to reduce industrial CO2 emissions. Whatever the bogeyman, humans obviously need to be afraid of something that is beyond their control - what better thing than the weather.

 

Hey Snuffy - good time to bring up Suns questions about H1N1. Sorry - but I actually went back and read the thread. I encourage others to do so FOR THEMSELVES instead of relying of misreported info from others. Your post suggested that Sun was of the position that H1N1 wasn't a threat and that he was against the shot. Totally innacurate. If people do take the time to go back and re-read the thread, they'll see for themselves how easy it is for people to misreport the facts, and maybe they'll do their own thinking, instead of relying on the others distorted reporting of the facts. BTW- anyone watch the national last night - (according to CBC, but possibly not accuratley reported) Canada will likley have 20M extra Flu Shots that they will have to give away to developing nations - excellent use of my money. Maybe we could have just sent that money over earlier for the developing nations to use for clean water - with a 1000:1 increase in benefit.

[adc]

Do you think that it is alright to pour oil into the ocean? Probably not, so why is it alright to spew toxins into the air when we instead could look for solutions? I still ask you, how do we have the right to pollute the air?

 

In all these climate change discussions I have yet to see one person who does not believe in AGW say they were not in favour of cleaning up the environment and reducing pollution.........Using AGW as a scare tactic to get people to do that is wrong.........Some will argue that the end justifies the means but many prefer to be told the truth (especially by scientists) and make thier own decisions.........

[rehsifylf]

A poll on a fly fishing site in Alberta of all places can hardly be considered even remotely statistically accurate. For someone who's always out to debunk "bad science" this should be pretty obvious to you. Unless of course you only take the science you disagree with to task and ignore the bad science you agree with...

 

I'd say this - the people voting in this poll have probably read the thread and at least seen information on both sides of the debate. Most Canadians have not and are too lazy to bother looking at it for themselves.

 

So, I would agree that this poll wouldn't represent the general pop - but it would do a good job of representing the views of people that are at least reasonably informed of the subject.

[headscan]

I'd say this - the people voting in this poll have probably read the thread and at least seen information on both sides of the debate. Most Canadians have not and are too lazy to bother looking at it for themselves.

 

So, I would agree that this poll wouldn't represent the general pop - but it would do a good job of representing the views of people that are at least reasonably informed of the subject.

If you actually believe that then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[TerryH]

The dog ate my data -- and when he barfed it up, it looked like .....

[Smitty]

In all these climate change discussions I have yet to see one person who does not believe in AGW say they were not in favour of cleaning up the environment and reducing pollution...

 

Hi. nice to meet you!

 

This is what I have been saying. The travesty of this debate is that is a massive distraction from some incredibly more pressing problems.

 

Anyways, I didn't vote in the poll, because there wasn't an option that said:

 

"I'm really sick of this debate, its incredibly obvious the earth has waxed and waned for millennia between warming and cooling, and I think the alarmists are idiots, but I also happen to think its sound practice to improve efficiencies and have economies improve in reducing their carbon footprint. Its a no brainer that we should have a regulatory process that provides incentives to reduce the amount of pollutants and non-pollutants in the air, water, and soil, but as far as picking on any one industry or any one country with unrealistic, unsupportable short term goals ("lets reduce emissions by 75% in 3 years, yay!"), those tree huggers can go jump in a lake. It will take a fair and balanced process with ALL the emitters agreeing to a sound, uncorrupted science based plan.

 

But that wasn't a choice. So I didn't vote. But then, I have always been a moderate. Truth be told, if the debate is encapsulated by SL vs Sun's position, I am neither.

 

And probably so are most people on this board and, I suspect, in this country.

 

Smitty

 

 

[Ricinus]

........If the leaders are corrupt---Hitler, Rev. Jim Jones, Al Gore---too bad for the sheep......I prefer not to drink the Kool Aid but there are plenty in the line up for it........

 

I think linking Al Gore to Hitler and Jim Jones is a little over the top. Whether you agree with his views or not, to demonize him in this form is ridiculous. The man wrote a book for his daughters and the world picked up on it and ended up with him getting a Nobel Prize, hardly an evil person. I wonder what the world would be like if he had been elected POTUS instead of GWB.

 

Regards Mike

[adc]

I think linking Al Gore to Hitler and Jim Jones is a little over the top. Whether you agree with his views or not, to demonize him in this form is ridiculous. The man wrote a book for his daughters and the world picked up on it and ended up with him getting a Nobel Prize, hardly an evil person. I wonder what the world would be like if he had been elected POTUS instead of GWB.

 

Regards Mike

 

Yeah, I know, Mike.......I'm guilty of sensationalzing too........Must be going around........Anyway, I'm sure Al Gore is not in the same camp as Jones or Hitler but I really do think he has an agenda that's a bit deeper than writing a scary book for his kids..........And as for the world embracing it, Hollywood embraced it and then "the world" just followed along...........More of the sheep theory......

[SupremeLeader]

Hi. nice to meet you!

 

This is what I have been saying. The travesty of this debate is that is a massive distraction from some incredibly more pressing problems.

 

 

Smitty

 

 

Thing is, the problem is very 'pressing' for some communities (particularily in the Arctic). And there is the vast amounts of locked methane that may possibly be released into the atmosphere if the climate continues to warm at this unprecedented rate (please...don't bring up the 10 year nonsense 'trend'). I say possibly because this is not a known outcome at this point, however, it is hardly something that should be played with considering Methane is 10 times more potent a greenhous gas than C02.

 

 

 

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3647

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....l-below-the-ice

 

[adc]

"I'm really sick of this debate, its incredibly obvious the earth has waxed and waned for millennia between warming and cooling, and I think the alarmists are idiots, but I also happen to think its sound practice to improve efficiencies and have economies improve in reducing their carbon footprint. Its a no brainer that we should have a regulatory process that provides incentives to reduce the amount of pollutants and non-pollutants in the air, water, and soil, but as far as picking on any one industry or any one country with unrealistic, unsupportable short term goals ("lets reduce emissions by 75% in 3 years, yay!"), those tree huggers can go jump in a lake. It will take a fair and balanced process with ALL the emitters agreeing to a sound, uncorrupted science based plan.

Nice to meet you too..........I think on those wise words, this thread could be closed!!!...........Well said.........

[BBBrownie]

There are sheep on both sides...As an Alberta comfortably bathing in warm oil I think it would be easier to listen to the BAH on the side of industry actually. Science has a long ways to go in regards to these climate change issues, but I side with those who believe that pollution is never good, and we always must strive for improvement and efficiency. Call me a firm believer in both the precautionary principal and the beauty of nature. Perhaps the world needs more tree huggers...trees are important for fish.

[Ricinus]

Hi. nice to meet you!

 

This is what I have been saying. The travesty of this debate is that is a massive distraction from some incredibly more pressing problems.

 

Anyways, I didn't vote in the poll, because there wasn't an option that said:

 

"I'm really sick of this debate, its incredibly obvious the earth has waxed and waned for millennia between warming and cooling, and I think the alarmists are idiots, but I also happen to think its sound practice to improve efficiencies and have economies improve in reducing their carbon footprint. Its a no brainer that we should have a regulatory process that provides incentives to reduce the amount of pollutants and non-pollutants in the air, water, and soil, but as far as picking on any one industry or any one country with unrealistic, unsupportable short term goals ("lets reduce emissions by 75% in 3 years, yay!"), those tree huggers can go jump in a lake. It will take a fair and balanced process with ALL the emitters agreeing to a sound, uncorrupted science based plan.

 

But that wasn't a choice. So I didn't vote. But then, I have always been a moderate. Truth be told, if the debate is encapsulated by SL vs Sun's position, I am neither.

 

And probably so are most people on this board and, I suspect, in this country.

 

Smitty

 

Nice Post, I don't totally agree, but it lays out a pretty balanced approach.

 

Now I'm going to shovel some " Climate Change" off my driveway.

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

There are sheep on both sides...As an Alberta comfortably bathing in warm oil I think it would be easier to listen to the BAH on the side of industry actually. Science has a long ways to go in regards to these climate change issues, but I side with those who believe that pollution is never good, and we always must strive for improvement and efficiency. Call me a firm believer in both the precautionary principal and the beauty of nature. Perhaps the world needs more tree huggers...trees are important for fish.

 

I am all for less pollution...100% in favor of that simple statement. As for your overall statement... I am pretty much there also. I just want a little more say in spending my hard earned tax dollars. When growing up the US actually had a group like the global warming group set up. It was set up for global cooling concerns. I can not see us going back to the same carbon footprint as people has in the late 1800's. It is impossible and moving down that path a waste of time. Chicken Little ran around trying to save people and find out what can be done to prevent the sky from falling. Taking precautions or "buying" insurance can be a valid arguement. But so does buying value added insurance. Buy too much, put too much into it for coverage and it is a waste in itself.

 

Let's just hope that science goes back to doing science. I know a very senior PhD in applied sciences. He and all his friends say that science has become political rather than practical. I value his opinion as his influence covers a vast number of prestigious Universities all around the world. Funding over the years has come with more and more hair attached to it. Working at the U of C depending upon what you are doing could easily miss the stuff that goes on in the higher profile areas. If someone can't see that...then good for you insofar as you are either insulted by others or not in a field of study that political influence cares about.

 

As for H1N1...I am happy someone actually went to the facts to see where I stood on that. Thanks.

 

While I admit to taking things seriously that I feel matters...I am always open to say I was wrong or Iyou have changed my opinion. Facts to me are like real bullets. I can't argue with them staring me in the face. Rubber bullets...cap guns...maybe...but I need to be sure...cautious but sure... :-)

 

Lots of people make assumptions science is always on the up and up. People claim 11 years of cooling is meaningless. They also say the 5 degrees of warming since the last ice age is meaningless. The significance of a point in time...always comes down to the here and now for many. If SL wants to discuss time...5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years is meaningless from a climate perspecctive IMHO and I have always said that. SL talks about 30 years of warming then 11 years of cooling and assumes 100 years of warming to come without thinking of the prior warming before 30 years ago. Talking 500, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 starts to have real scientific meaning versus human emotional fear responses.

 

Unfortunately...IMHO the real problem comes down to the graphs and the math that is at the center of the debate as there was admitted manipulation, hiding of declines, raw data destruction and refusal of data to those wanting to confirm the information.

 

How about we just leave this thread and say...with the Climate Gate controversy...the data should be more freely available and better discussions amongst those credible math, statistics and climate researchers should come up with a reasonable and fair concensus :-)

 

As this has gone from debating specific points regarding climate gate to arguing over did scientists fudge data or manipulate the system versus doing good science it is not going much further. Let's wait and see if new important data gets put forward in the next year.

 

Cheers and happy ice fishing.

Sun

[wtforward]

Before closing the thread may I offer up a very interesting read.

Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan. I am not condoning being

"Jonesed" ... the outrage speaks for itself but if you want a glimpse

of how the real big boys play read the book. Some references

to "reputable" go to disciples (suggested on this site) for the denier

crowd are in for a little insight. Yes it is a view from the other side

of the Grand Canyon and yes it deals with the "hockey stick"

and it exposes how we are manipulated given what is at stake.

If after reading the book and you are still comfortable with your stand

fine. The book is less than a flat of beer and it

is the cheapest tuition fee on climate politics around. Suggest you

read the book first then come back and do the poll thing considering

what may or may not be at stake.

 

It would have been an interesting question on the poll "How many have read

the book ?"

 

Cheers

Tim

[SupremeLeader]

Before closing the thread may I offer up a very interesting read.

Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan. I am not condoning being

"Jonesed" ... the outrage speaks for itself but if you want a glimpse

of how the real big boys play read the book. Some references

to "reputable" go to disciples (suggested on this site) for the denier

crowd are in for a little insight. Yes it is a view from the other side

of the Grand Canyon and yes it deals with the "hockey stick"

and it exposes how we are manipulated given what is at stake.

If after reading the book and you are still comfortable with your stand

fine. The book is less than a flat of beer and it

is the cheapest tuition fee on climate politics around. Suggest you

read the book first then come back and do the poll thing considering

what may or may not be at stake.

 

It would have been an interesting question on the poll "How many have read

the book ?"

 

Cheers

Tim

 

agreed.