Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor - Page 22

Thomen · 12-10-09, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Where'd that graph come from? Just curious.

NASA.. right click and see properties for the picture. =)

SteamWake · 12-10-09, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed...

LOL so true but hey that wont stop em from trying

NeonSamurai · 12-10-09, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed...

Eh hasn't stopped me in the past though I do not try to go to nuts.

You are right though, I don't think any of these debates have changed any minds really. Which suggests that its a total time waster, and I probably shouldn't bother so much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I just cant look at any chart, graph, or report anymore without a jaded eye.

One thing I note on that graph is it is quite spread out with hundreds/thousands of years between divisions untill it gets to the end when suddenly the scale shifts to 10 years or so or 1/1000th of the previous scales. That alone would skew the portrayel.

Good eye, that is a key reason why I don't like that graph, there is a scale shift (though not as dramatic as you are suggesting, the scale cuts by less then about 1/2). Graphs are great for presenting numbers, but very easily manipulated. For example changing the X scale would make the data seem more or less significant on what way I change the scale. I could make that graph look like massive peaks (or changes), or barely any change at all. One should always look at the numbers both in the graph, and behind them.

Anyhow here is the same graph again, with out that scale error, and a report with full citations too.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

It shows the same trend, but that is not surprising when the scale of the graph is in sub divided 50000 year segments. High levels of man made CO2 production only started in the last 150 years or so. They don't though say the zero point in this graph, though it is probably 0 BP (Before Present) or 1950.

They seem to be blending data sources in that graph however (not just different ice core data, but also are also including direct measurement), which might be problematic. I would have to look into the sources, and the science behind it to draw any conclusions as I am not sure if that is scientifically acceptable or not.

Respenus · 12-10-09, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK1044

The GW subject has always been in part about the redistribution of world wealth, by guilting the wealthy into helping the third world. I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where that very scenario was front and center.The 'science' has always been a back drop for that agenda.

I admit it. By your standards I'm a filthy, dirty commie who has to be hunted down in the great fight to support capitalist "liberal" democracy and the free market, God bless its (his?) soul!

While I would like to see more wealth distributed to the poorest of countries, considering that we, the West are throwing out money by the truckloads with stupid, irational activities just to support the consumerist agenda. Hobsbawm wrote in his book The Age of Extremes that consumerism has replaced ideology. Unfortunately for us he was quite right, as we are now unable to look past ourselves and our children are picked up this more and more (See the future of anarcholiberalism thread I posted some time ago).

Yet this does not mean that I, as a (future) member of the academia am willing to degrade my science in the fulfilment of any political goals I may have. I wish prosperity for everyone and changing our lifestyles, which will spend and emit less, while keeping us prosper as newer before seen in the history of men, for this is his future, one I shall see built.

Remind me some time to write a short essay on my views on transhumanism and climate change.
__________________________
Looks like we won't have to convince America with a rational debate. We'll just throw god into the mix and he'll strait everything up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8405108.stm

Quote:

The candidate who is able to give them one, who can straddle the divide between social conservatism and environmental activism, who can recruit God in the service of the planet, is onto a winner.

August · 12-10-09, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Respenus

I admit it. By your standards I'm a filthy, dirty commie who has to be hunted down in the great fight to support capitalist "liberal" democracy and the free market

Quit being a filthy, dirty commie drama queen Respenus. There is no way you could arrive at that assumption from what he wrote. Not even close.

Respenus · 12-10-09, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quit being a filthy, dirty commie drama queen Respenus. There is no way you could arrive at that assumption from what he wrote. Not even close.

My apologies August. I meant how most Americans on this forums have been reacting to the whole climate change issue. While I admit I might had steeped over the line by using just one quote, yet I do have other things to do right now, so I haven't looked at every single sentence that has been written.

12-10-09, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quit being a filthy, dirty commie drama queen Respenus. There is no way you could arrive at that assumption from what he wrote. Not even close.

Quit being a filthy, dirty fascist drama queen August.

Morts · 12-10-09, 05:14 PM

anyone got some popcorn ? this is looking to be quite a fight

antikristuseke · 12-10-09, 05:32 PM

this is retarded.

Torpex752 · 12-10-09, 05:41 PM

1950..wasnt it around that time when The Aliens crashed at Roswell?

Maybe its their fault..or they left a CO2 bomb and its leaking! LOL

Sorry couldnt resist.

Onkel Neal · 12-10-09, 06:24 PM

FYI to all: just because someone says something you don't agree with, is not a green light to hit the Report Bad Post button, many, many times.

12-10-09, 06:24 PM

@Respenus

I had noticed a double-bind in your article. On this one point, the author should have thought a-little more carefuly.

First he complains USA isn't doing enough to control emissions.
Then he goes on to say that USA needs to wean herself off Middle East oil.

USA could easily wean herself off Middle East oil if she returned to fully utilizing coal.
Oil imports would decline, and unfortunately emissions would rise.

That's why I think the author made a big mistake in coupling these two separate issues.

12-10-09, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

FYI to all: just because someone says something you don't agree with, is not a green light to hit the Report Bad Post button, many, many times.

I guess this rule doesn't apply to Sailor Steve.

AVGWarhawk · 12-10-09, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Actually they can measure CO2 pretty accurately going back much further then that. It is called ice core samples. So no its not educated guess work at all but pretty hard data. The only argument that could be made against it would be that it is localized data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

No offense meant, but it usually helps to have some knowledge about the science before you try to criticize it.

Yes, I have read about the core samples as great indicators for CO2. You're a smart cookie Neon!

AVGWarhawk · 12-10-09, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morts

anyone got some popcorn ? this is looking to be quite a fight

12-10-09, 06:24 PM	#326
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	FYI to all: just because someone says something you don't agree with, is not a green light to hit the Report Bad Post button, many, many times. __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

12-10-09, 05:14 PM	#323
Morts Admiral Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denmark Posts: 2,395 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 0	anyone got some popcorn ? this is looking to be quite a fight

12-10-09, 05:32 PM	#324
antikristuseke Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Estland Posts: 4,330 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	this is retarded.

12-10-09, 05:41 PM	#325
Torpex752 Lieutenant Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Deep River, CT Posts: 255 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	1950..wasnt it around that time when The Aliens crashed at Roswell? Maybe its their fault..or they left a CO2 bomb and its leaking! LOL Sorry couldnt resist.

12-10-09, 06:24 PM	#327
Snestorm Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	@Respenus I had noticed a double-bind in your article. On this one point, the author should have thought a-little more carefuly. First he complains USA isn't doing enough to control emissions. Then he goes on to say that USA needs to wean herself off Middle East oil. USA could easily wean herself off Middle East oil if she returned to fully utilizing coal. Oil imports would decline, and unfortunately emissions would rise. That's why I think the author made a big mistake in coupling these two separate issues.