SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158478)

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...on-display.ars

Thought that might be interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1211889)

I have been to the hospital 4 times for collapsed lungs. I lived with a ER physician. I called him dad because he was my dad. I have not heard slang like you describe at all in my 44 years.

Patiensts of course do not get told that. And whether it is like that in families, may depend on the families, maybe? My dad and me use to exchnage friendly offences and names that are anything but friendly if taking them literally. Some guests occaisonally said they felt "bewildered".

I was for limited times working in a hospital and a psychiatry, too. And from that I know that sometimes our nicknames for patients also were anything but polite - if no patient was around to listen. :)

For more medical slang and examples of how to behave polite, ask Dr. House. :D

Any profession has it's ingroup slang, I assume. And the more familiar colleagues are, the more relaxed the conversation rules are - and the language. Have you ever realsied how drastic and sudden the change in language and behavior amongst male soldiers is once a female entered the tent - even more so if she carries a star on the shoulder pads? ;) :salute:

Quote:

I believe you have taken this climate change hook, line and sinker. I do not believe it is quite as critical as believed but it makes good PR, great ratings and most importantly, profits. You keep on believing! :03: Maybe if you ignore the emails it will all go away and you can continue your fear and loathing. :O:

And this says someone who completely ignores the enormous, much more serious deficits in the propaganda show on the sceptics side. So many projects there have been who meanwhile are known to have been completely faked, fake institutes have been "founded" just to create fake reaserach results and get faked petitions signed by honest scientists doing so in good belief. So much there is that is not even bad methodology, but lack of it completely, and does not even show indepednat research, just claims to have done that: simply lies invented to discredit results from scientific research the sceptics-lobby needs to fight against to fulfill it's orders: to secure that chnages get minimised and delayed and business runs on as usual and the same people can catch the cream from the coffee while leaving anything as it is.

Yes, the email issue is welcomed fodder in the propaganda war. But the failings and misdeeds in the scpetics camp are far, far, far more serious and damaging. Add to that the reasonable doubt one has to have with regard to at least parts of those emails: ingroup slang, uncomplete communication, quotes out of context.

yes, hook line and sinker taken and successfully assimilated - on your side, Warhawk. ;)

Quote:

And this says someone who completely ignores the enormous, much more serious deficits in the propaganda show on the sceptics side.

Can you spot anywhere that I have ignored the enormous? You can find where I have stated man has contributed to global warming or lets call it climate change as is being coined these days. I have stated that in this very thread. I refuse to take it all hook, line and sinker because there are things the earth is doing that completely befuddles the scientists. This is not an exact science. For years factories have been told to clean up the emissions. Automobile manufactures are told to clean up the emissions. Freon is gone. Aerosal propellent is not widely used as before yet the earth still warms according to the world leading authorities (Gore :shifty:) who apparently have some disenchanting emails that have come to light. So what gives? Anyone got tired of dumping billions into cleaning up our act, buying carbon credits (wth crap is that?) and looking to frowned on because I used one more square of toilet paper to take care of my business? It is getting to be a bit much with the end is near when the science is not exact.

You ignore the enormous deficits in the sceptics camp very much, and instead say the email "scandal" (if it is that) belittles the pro GW science camp much more and is a reason why it must not be taken serious and data on GW must be collected again. You overestimate the one, and underestimate the other.

It is not reasonable to assume that just stopping emitting this agent and that aerosol (and since when do we talk on full stops on emissions?) within three years or five would create effects going reverse. Not when considering the enormous inner self-dynmaic of the chaotic system climate is. Not when considering that while some developed nations limited emissions, other nations nullified that by exploding emission levels and thus increased global levels of emissions. Not when considering that the half-life values for substances and agents can be many years, even decades.

Even if the fairy queen would come and make all critical emissions stop and falling to zero from one day to the other, I am very sure the detoriating trends we see would continue to move at that direction for many, many more years to come, and probbaly would speed up too for the forseeable future as if no emission stop had taken place.

And now consider the feedback from the climate and ecologic system that is created from the already effective changes in conditions right now. It could very well be that the changes already done have pushed the self dynamic of the transformation process beyond the point were it could be stopped and reversed again. In fact I am very sure of that.

Much of that transformation we may not even know of, when it is being out of our sight. The speed of melting ice and arctic glaciers for example has surprised scientists this year, because it did not meet the speed predictions, but by far exceeded them. They had not seen that the ice is not only melting oin the surface, but that the water created deep "drilling" holes that let the melting effect penetrate deep into the core of the ice as well, and creating a water sledge under the ice on which the glacier ice started to move faster, that way braking and fragmentising faster, and exposing a greater surface and more of it's core to the warm air.

for comparing reasons, several speed assessement from just two or three years ago had to be corrected in the past 12 months or so, pushing speed estimates and effect levels always upwards. The global process is not so much linear and unicausal, but exponential and multicausal, it seems. This year has seen several scientific teams warning that they think it is possible that the process we have seen only runs that way until a certain treshhold value or criterion, and when reaching that, sends climate and ecology changing in a chaotic phase of extremely rapid, explosive change that summarises effects expected to develope over the next let's say 100 years within just ten years or even less.

However. This debate in various forms has taken place many times already.

Interesting article by one of the people mentioned in the emails: Dogulas Keenan

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-fra...pjm-exclusive/

A tidbit:

Quote:

Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important. In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

This is not going to change your minds, but worth to read:

A few lines from the article:

Quote:

This month, thousands of people from all over the world, including many heads of state, will gather in Copenhagen to try to forge an agreement to drastically cut atmospheric emissions of an invisible, odorless gas: carbon dioxide. Despite efforts by some leading countries to lower expectations ahead of the conference about what can and will be achieved, the meeting is still being called the most important conference since World War II. And at the conference’s heart are the results of Tyndall’s experiments.
But the story starts even before Tyndall, with the French genius Joseph Fourier. An orphan who was educated by monks, Fourier was a professor at the age of 18, and became Napoleon’s governor in Egypt before returning to a career in science. In 1824, Fourier discovered why our planet’s climate is so warm – tens of degrees warmer than a simple calculation of its energy balance would suggest. The sun brings heat, and earth radiates heat back into space – but the numbers did not balance. Fourier realized that gases in our atmosphere trap heat. He called his discovery l’effet de serre – the greenhouse effect.
It was Tyndall who then put Fourier’s ideas to the test in his laboratory. He proved that some gases absorb radiant heat (today we would say long-wave radiation). One of these gases was CO2. In 1859, Tyndall described the greenhouse effect in beautifully concise words: “The atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
Then, in 1897, Svante Arrhenius, who earned a Nobel Prize for chemistry six years later, calculated how much global warming a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause. His answer was 4-6 degrees Celsius (a little more than the 2-4 degrees that modern studies consistently find).
Arrhenius was not in the least troubled by the prospect of global warming. Perhaps because he was Swedish, he proposed setting coal mines on fire to speed it up, since he thought a warmer climate was an excellent idea. But it was all just theory in Arrhenius’s time, since nobody had measurements to prove that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were in fact increasing.

Quote:

It then took only a few years until, in 1965, an expert report – the first of many – to US President Lyndon B. Johnson warned of global warming: “By the year 2000, the increase in carbon dioxide will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate.” In 1972, a more specific prediction was made in the leading science journal Nature , namely that temperatures would warm by half a degree Celsius by 2000. And, in 1979, the US National Academy of Sciences issued a stark warning of impending global warming.

And

Quote:

Most countries now agree that global warming should be stopped at a maximum of two degrees centigrade. But this has become an extremely tough challenge, as growth in greenhouse-gas emissions and atmospheric stocks accelerated in the years since Rio. That is why Copenhagen is so important: it may well be our last to address climate change before it addresses us.
Tyndall’s measurements 150 years ago showed that carbon dioxide traps heat and causes warming. And, 50 years ago, Keeling’s measurements showed that CO2 levels are increasing. In the meantime, earth’s climate has been heating up, as predicted. How much more proof do we need before we act?

The whole article:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ramstorf1

Fish, alot of that article is based on the tainted data we are discussing. Indeed global tempratures have not increased in the last few years in fact they have declined.

I saw this this morning, I can imagine Boxer's head swelling up to the exploding point. Oh I would have liked to see the look on her face. :03:

Quote:

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57879

Here is a decent summary of the events that have unfolded recently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telegraph UK

So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ravelling-now/

They are predicting a serious chance of snow this Friday. In early December. In Texas. On the Gulf Coast.

Global warming, my ass :haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 1212452)

They are predicting a serious chance of snow this Friday. In early December. In Texas. On the Gulf Coast.

Global warming, my ass :haha:

:har::har:

It is climate change Neal, climate change....nothing to do with your local weather. Come on, did you not get the book on Gore-isms.? BTW, look for some carbon credits I got you for Christmas. Check your stocking out. :03:

Great. I spent a whole year fighting spam in the forums and keeping flamewars in check and all I get is a lump of carbon in my stocking:wah:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 1212510)

Great. I spent a whole year fighting spam in the forums and keeping flamewars in check and all I get is a lump of carbon in my stocking:wah:

All thanks to Al Gore. Carbon for everyone! :salute:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 1212452)

They are predicting a serious chance of snow this Friday. In early December. In Texas. On the Gulf Coast.

Global warming, my ass :haha:

Dident yall get some snow today? (12/02/09)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 1212452)

They are predicting a serious chance of snow this Friday. In early December. In Texas. On the Gulf Coast.

Global warming, my ass :haha:

Neal, I live near the seashore and am fishing there on a regular bases. Last 15 to 20 years the seawater themp is rising new fishes come and others who lived here for centuries seem to move on north.
So whats the problem you will ask, well it's not a problem for me, but what for my grand-grand children? Is this what it is, or just the prelude to a much bigger problem?
Liever blo-jan dan do-jan, as we say. Means something like, better afraid, then dead. ;)

The Aussies.. if you will forgive the pun... Show cooler heads prevail.

Quote:

SYDNEY – Australia's plans for an emissions trading system to combat global warming were scuttled Wednesday in Parliament, handing a defeat to a government that had hoped to set an example at international climate change talks next week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/...mate_australia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 1212510)

Great. I spent a whole year fighting spam in the forums and keeping flamewars in check and all I get is a lump of carbon in my stocking:wah:

Did you pay the tax for that lump of carbon?