Climate Change

[NeonSamurai]

I will look into your allegations this weekend when I have some time. In the mean time I'll state the obvious problem with these emails you are highlighting, that they are take wholly with out any context. We do not know what any of these emails are referring to at all. Thus with out context they are in of themselves meaningless.

I know some of what is going on there is due to certain data being IP which can't be publicly released with out the consent of the owners of the IP data.

More later when I have some time to do the necessary researching to properly tackle what you have presented.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

ok - do you REALLY want to get into this... Fine by me. Its called go read the emails...

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

. . . .

Hiding data - and stating he would VIOLATE the law and DELETE data rather than provide it... not hiding a thing is he Neon?

No, not really. I mean, like you said (and like he said), the data would be deleted, not hidden. The reason mentioned in the beginning. As it stands, though, you do not have evidence that through deleting the data he was attempting to conceal anything in the first place, so any assertion that he was is merely a baseless claim. It also states in his email that he sent the information from research stations already acquired to Scott:

"Just sent loads of station data to Scott."

As a rule of thumb within the scientific research community, information stored on computers is passed along through the chain of command. And eventually, it's archived for use in the field. The data Scott was given was lost after his laptop's hard drive crashed; the only thing really wrong with it that the skeptics have been able to complain about are "typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing" (according to the Wall Street Journal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021404283.html). Typos in the dates and sloppiness in sourcing hardly disprove the entire field of global climate change science, let alone the particular sect the University of East Anglia specifically researches. The thoughts held by some of the skeptics (mentioned by the WSJ) that are exactly like this are, to put it bluntly, ignorant- trying to strengthen their position by attempting to pass off the notion that these minuscule problems are in fact gigantic. They're as bad as the people who, in the middle of a debate on the losing side, bring attention to the winning side's bad grammar or spelling, when and if it does exist.

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

What is citing this quote supposed to prove? Because it doesn't confirm anything. Again, you're using something so vague that if you presented it in front of a court, the judge would laugh his ass off and dismiss it.

"We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
"He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that."

The same above applies to these quotes. They're vague, and consequently meaningless and useless when it comes to trying to confirm that this is all some kind of conspiracy they've conjured up and are now trying to obliterate all proof of.

. . . .

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

As I have said, and will say for the third time, what exactly does this confirm? And I shall reiterate: nothing, because they're way too vague to be basing any skepticism which you hold on, let alone submit to us as "evidence" for this all being some kind of conspiracy.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The date here is important - as it is 24 days AFTER the first FoIA request, which the CRU acknowledged on May 6th.... This is the intentional deletion of data - data being destroyed - so that it may NOT be reviewed.

But you still haven't concretely established that it was deleted for the reasons you and your lot say it was. As I previously mentioned, the first email quote you posted on here stated that the information had already been passed along to Scott, who is a colleague of Dr. Jones' in studying climate change. Furthermore, the claim that the deletion of the data was intentional "so that it may not be reviewed" shows the lack of familiarity you have with how the scientific archiving process works (previously mentioned), let alone logic riddled with holes. If he was trying to destroy all evidence of contradictory scientific findings about climate change, why would he pass the results from the research stations along to Scott, his colleague? The point is to eliminate all of it, and not allow any of it to be available. That is, of course, assuming that he did/does have some kind of malicious motives compelling him to take these actions.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !

Apparently, you in addition to the bimbos they're referring to have no idea what he's talking about here. I suggest you do some Googling.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that.

Dr. Jones is well aware that the hockey stick graphs (three of them circulated, anyway) were contaminated by flaws in the methodology by researchers. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The Third Assessment Report was dominated by the hockey sticks story, but the IPCC has fully acknowledged the flaws with the three circulated models. Still, skeptics of climate change ignore this and continue to claim it proves the IPCC is lying and that this is all a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Also ignore Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

Because any comment Dr. Francis could make about the data looking similiar to the Mann-Bradley-Hughes model would be irrelevant. Why? Because we the MBH model does nothing but confirm the data the University of East Anglia has produced.

See the graphs for comparison.



What these bits of graphical data show is simple: the temperatures are steadily rising, and have been for centuries; but what it also shows is that around the beginning of the Industrial Age and Second Industrial Revolution when coal-burning factories were producing billions of tons of pollution and CO2 and CFCs into the atmosphere. The sudden climb in temperature around this period is evidence that the industrial side of civilization can easily influence the climate. In short: it's showing that man does have a large impact on the environment. Did... and does.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

You are aware that Dr. Jones never has gotten along well with the IPCC, because of their previous flaws in methodology (the hockey stick situation that was their fault in the first place), yes?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Wouldn't be deleting other model results that don't give the desired result now would he Neon? Can't actually release the data out can we?

Hey- you said it, Neon never did. Neither did I. Nor did the scientists.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data

Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

You have no idea what a subset removing station's job is in this field of science, do you? Well that's not new. This discussion has shown me that much. I suggest you get to Googling again. Anyway, as far as his beef with the nations mentioned are concerned, they're all part of the United Nations and affiliated with the IPCC. We've already covered that Jones is not to be noted for his fondness of them.

The early stations he's referring to are part of the University of East Anglia's satellite research project. NASA uses thousands of these same types of stations around the world. The university has a few hundred, many of which are in the same general localities. It would be repetitive and clotting to use the same data in the same report- clotting as in a waste of space. Again, this is standard procedure. Basically, all the stations they were using (as far as the end is concerned) were outdated in terms of the coding processes (which is an issue he addressed earlier in the email). Moving to raw data to other, more recently added stations would provide for more modern results (hence the reference to raw data; you see, Hap, raw data is a very good thing in scientific research, because it is the latest available, meaning that you can make near immediate comparisons to past data), whilst these newer stations would at the same time have older records archived.

Here is a chart showing the distribution of stations they have on planet Earth (current and historical):



The GHCN would be annoyed. After all, he would be "stealing" their data since he's also using their stations. At least, that's how they view it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But Jones figures a way out:
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

What does this prove? Nobody has a copy of the Ch6. AR4 document he's referring to. More mindless speculation and accusations made by the skeptical community.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

How impartial a scientist is Phil Jones? How open to evidence that he may be wrong? Gather from this confession to John Christy:

…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil

How is that a confession? It's not. A confession would be: "Yeah, we've been forging and creating all this data for decades as part of a global conspiracy to perpetuate the charaderated pseudoscientific topic that is global warming/climate change; and furthermore, that man has any responsibility for it." Your mind has a strange way of thinking when it comes to verbiage subjects.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

No way the "science" - that he has overseen being modified - could be false huh....

Anything could be. But speaking from the standpoint of facts and evidence, the way a court would view it, it's not fake. The way the majority of the scientific community views it: it's not fake. And that's how simple it is.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for the data being "lost" - as CRU claims - its funny that above Jones specifically states as an option the sending of the raw data - or "reconstructing" it .... He had it up until he had to show it to anyone - then it became "lost" - or as his own words show - DELETED....

Correction: the CRU stated that the data was lost, true, but it's not Jones' data they're referring to; it's the copies Scott had been given by Jones that he was supposed to archive. As I talked about earlier, the hard drive the files were on crashed. The data was unrecoverable.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Oh and as for "well there is a scientific concensus" - check the attempts to stop the publication of papers by sceptics such as Chris de Freitas and Roger Pielk.

What attempts? Dr. Freitas is a well-known and respected member of the scientific community. He has his rivals, but the man is free to express his opinion. He himself though has not headed any research projects into the subject of climate change or global warming. All the jobs he's held in the scientific community have been social in nature. He writes columns now for magazines and papers, he is the Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand (even though his P.h.D.s extend primarily in technology and he holds not one pertaining to meteorology), and he created the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum. But as far as research goes, he's done very little on this subject.

Pielke is not a skeptic of climate change. That's a very common misconception by your lot. He has stated, and I quote, that the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers. (source: http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf)

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

"Redefine" does not mean "forge", as you claimed, in the dictionary, mon ami.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Note no comment about the science itself in the papers being demonstratably false - oh no. Instead - we will change the rules if need be to only the right people heard - and those people are the ones that agree with the doomsayers...

This conclusion, of course, being entirely centered around the skeptical interpretation of the emails, and not the proper manner: to look at it as a court would, on a factual level. And the facts are showing more and more than through misinterpretation, misappropriation, bias, unprofessionalism, ignorance, and so much more.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And so someone like you Neon - going out to research the data yourself - still don't get to review all the data - because that which is unfavorable - is kept away from EVERYONE. You get to see only what those with a specific desire as to the outcome decide to make available.

Tell you what, because you *obviously* have all the knowledge and skills and a *titanic* amount of experience in scientific research, why don't you do this: do your own scientific research on this matter. By that I mean conduct an experiment for yourself. You can buy the equipment to do it (it's not too expensive), set it up yourself and record your findings (because of your massive amount of experience, this should be easy), and then watch for a few years how the climate in the country is behaving. It's really very easy. Plenty of amateur scientists and researchers do it. I myself study it daily. I've bought some monitors to check humidity, temperature, cloud cover and the lot, been able to openly access live satellite data from literally hundreds of organizations the world over that study the climate professionally, and I've got the patience to do it. Computing power won't be a problem for you. Even a chap running a computer from 1995 with an Internet connection could do it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You can spout all this mess you want -

Likewise.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

but to claim that no data was deleted - when the director of the CRU states as an option to release it - then it suddenly comes up "lost" - give me a break.

We've covered this already.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And your right - he did "resign" - but do you really think he had any choice? He was booted - the boot just had not hit his A$$ yet..

Well there's nothing you've presented to even remotely suggest that he didn't have a choice. The latter statement by you is just one of many baseless claims I've read on here today.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Don't take my word for it - you like to research - go to http://www.climate-gate.org/ and read every blasted one of them if you want.

Lol, "Climate-Gate". It's amusing and yet a sad reflection on society today about how people have such difficulty realizing how this propaganda game works. Do you really think they're even going to concede one inch of ground in this debate to the people who know that climate change is occurring? Of course not. Because it would damn their position in all this. Of course you'll then get the claim that the scientific community is no better- that they would do the exact same thing. So again, if you really think that, go out and conduct research on the climate for yourself. It's really not that difficult. But I already know what's going to happen. You're going to create an excuse for why you can't. Aside from your ignorance on science as a whole, you know very little if anything significant about this debate. You copy & paste all your "facts" from other peoples' posts from various sites around the Internet. Your emails section of your post had parts taken directly from Sweetness & Light:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/e...cru-head-jones

"The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):"
"For years Jones has made clear his determination to keep crucial data from the eyes of sceptics:"
"And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to may checking it more difficult or annoying:"

You had those exact same sentences in your post, when they were not by you. They originated from the website I posted a link to. That's called infringement and it's very illegal.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Oh wow - some youtube fella had a linguistic answer for 2 emails...... I never had a problem with the "trick" word since I as an engineer understood it. But somehow that explanation makes the whole thing some blown out of proportion, right wing, anti climate change conspiracy... Gimme a break.

We're not the ones claiming its a conspiracy by "right-wing, anti-climate change" groups/people/whatever, or for that matter coming up with kooky names like "Climate-Gate" to describe what we've found. We're simply saying that the skeptics are misled from incorrect and inaccurate data that's scientifically valid in nature. That's all. We have no problem with questioning the results (in fact, we encourage it), but when it gets this ridiculous, it's time to stop. Any idiot with a web connection and a thermometer could see on the most basic level possible that the atmosphere and as a consequence temperate are being influenced by man in some fashion, aiding to the problem that is global warming. But that's exactly the problem: nobody ever does this. The critics always stick to fighting the actual papers and words with more papers and words, never actually going out and conducting experiments to confirm or refute their hypotheses (in this case, that global warming aided by man is a hoax). That's nothing but sheer laziness. No excuse for it whatsoever.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Neon - I know your smarter than that. No respectable scientist - or group of scientists - is going to act like the CRU has.

And yet statistically, surveys show that the overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community stands by/with the CRU's conclusion that global warming is at least partially caused by man.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global..._apr23_08.html

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Can you tell me honestly that - knowing that the vast majority of climate views and papers out there - are based off of the data provided - "reconstructed" by these same "scientists" at the CRU - should still be considered gospel when the data they are based on is admittedly modified and the original, raw data now "lost"?

What's your citation for "the vast majority of climate views and papers out there - are based off the data provided - 'reconstructed' by these same 'scientists' at the CRU" (and I stress the climate views and papers part)?

WHO IN THE NAME OF GOD EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TAKING THE PAPERS AS "GOSPEL"? Jesus, man... you've got a long ways to go on the field of science.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I know a few scientists in a number of fields - and not a one worth his or her salt would put such faith in research and papers that are based on such questionable foundational data.....

Ah yes, the old "I know/have this friend" argument; almost a perfect replica of the "My grandfather/father/grandmother/mother/uncle/aunt/cousin" argument. People that try to drag in personal parts of life related just to them fail. Hard. The reason being we have no way to confirm/refute your stories. Which is exactly why it's not used in professional debates; only facts and logic are used...

Originally Posted by Captain Haplo

An objective scientist wouldn't - because whether on the research side or the applied side - every scientist knows - garbage in = garbage out.

An objective scientist also wouldn't take research papers as "gospel", as you previously stated...

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for the issue of overpopulation - there are a number of things science could be doing about it.

You're right. Just like there's a number of things religion could be doing about it... like stop saying condoms are against the will of the invisible man in the sky and abortions are nothing but concentrated evil rituals... damn Catholics. For that matter, stop complaining about sex education being taught in schools. Maybe stop bitching about rights and let us implement a population control system like China used to use. (If you're going to bash science, then I'm going to take the opportunity to take it out on religion- which continues to be the archenemy of science to this day. Just thought I'd throw that out there for sh**s and giggles).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

How about spending the efforts currently devoted to "OMG the SKY IS falling (figuratively) because of climate change" to things like how can we use the majority of landmass that is currently covered with water to our advantage.

First, we'll have bigger problems if the climate goes to hell. Chiefly: witnessing the extinction of our entire species and knowing Earth will become the half-extreme brother of Venus in terms of atmospheric conditions. Second, what are you talking about- "how we can use the majority of landmass that is currently covered with water to our advantage"? Third, it's obvious you're still very naive when it comes to science; don't try to pass yourself off as this benign intelligence on it.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

How can we find ways to lessen the population load on the planet long term through migration off planet.

Before we talk about colonizing space, which is going to be a VERY long ways off in the future, why don't we focus on more currently feasible, down-to-earth ideas? Like birth control, population control, sex education in school, etc.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Yes it might take 25 or 50 years of research.

Try a few hundred. I will be very lucky if I live to see man walk on Mars by the time I'm 253-years-old. It's not as easy as you make it sound. Really, it isn't.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Best to start now huh?

With the way the economy has been for the past four years? Yeah, that's a great idea... blow our money away on space colonization- which may just as well be a matter of science fiction because of how difficult it is at the moment and the amount of time it will take. We'd be better off managing the climate first, then attempting to find a backup world we could inhabit. Which is going to take quite some time.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Sure parts of this runs into applied science -

A lot of it comes down to applied sciences.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

but it goes back to the MONEY and POLTICS..... because some would rather spend the next 2 decades trying to say "see this or that will happen" instead of finding ways to fix the real problems that affect the earth.

And it's apparent that you have no idea what the real problems are that are affecting Earth, or, for that matter, how to approach solving them in the first place.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Ok - as for the funding matter -OMG big oil...

Exxon Mobile has spent $23 Million over the last 10 years to research institutes concerned with climate research. That averages less than $2 Million a year.

The US government has spent in that same 10 year period an average of over 2 BILLION dollars a year - going to groups like the CRU....

Oh but BIG OIL!!!! How about BIG GOVERNMENT??? Lets look at JUST the recovery act of 2009

Put your soapbox up and go find somewhere else to preach your political shenanigans. Climate change is a scientific issue, not one for politics. Politics can intrude into it when discussing conspiracy theories (that it's all some kind of movement by the left/right to profit/control-the-masses; you know how it goes), but we're arguing over whether or not the RESEARCH is valid and accurate and whether or not the scientists conducting it are trustworthy.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration received $170 million for climate modeling, and $660 million that includes support for maintenance and construction of research vessels and facilities.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssets/spec.pdf

Page Not Found

The page you requested wasn't found at this location.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Ok... you know - the climate doomsayers must be right. There is no wrongdoing in knowingly violating FoIA laws and intentionaling deleting data - or telling others to do it.

Hey man- you said it. We the "climate doomsayers" didn't. But this is an issue we've already addressed.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There is nothing wrong with making sure no one with a differeing view doesn't get heard. There is nothing wrong with pointing at Big Oil as the evil demon spending Big Money when the government spends anywhere from 85 to 420 times more at the drop of a hat...

That's hardly the case and you know it. We're not the ones playing the victim card here. It's your lot who frequently says it's being oppressed, it's your lot (or at least you, anyway) that's been misrepresenting the facts here (and I've already addressed that issue), and it's your lot that's doing nothing scientific to invalidate current climate change theories and "expose" it as some big conspiracy/hoax- even when it's perfectly capable of doing it.


IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO SPEND MONEY. At least, it's in the job description. Asides from using it to improve on national areas (a variety of which I cannot even begin to touch upon in a single post), do you not understand that it's because they spend this money that we have what we have around us- that we have the country we have today and will hopefully continue to have in the future? Has it been all good? No. But it hasn't been all bad either. Anybody who thinks it has been... well, they're a bit rusty when it comes to US history.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It is documentable facts like the above - that makes this whole subject like watching the wizard of oz....

And it's our documented facts that are always there to remind people of the truth, and assure them that, "Don't worry, the Wizard of Oz is just a fictional story."

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

people standing there going "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain!".

You mean the same way the "Climate-Gate" conspiracy theorists/wannabe hoax "debunkers" stand around going, "Ignore the scientists and the information/resources you can find all over the world that can confirm what they're saying! Everything is fine! Don't waste your time investigating the matter for yourselves! Listen to us! We've got all the answers! Just like the guys over on 911Truth.com!"? Which is all any of you do practically. You yourself obviously haven't bothered to do any real research in the matter (and by that, I mean you haven't made a dedicated effort to understanding this topic- let alone attempted to become a part of the scientific community to understand how it works). Thank Odin, however, that people like your lot are not the ones heading the major scientific organizations researching climate change. And may it remain that way for as long as human civilization endures.

WHO IN THE NAME OF GOD EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TAKING THE PAPERS AS "GOSPEL"? Jesus, man... you've got a long ways to go on the field of science.

That must be just about the funniest thing ever written here.

[Skybird]

Wowh Stealth Hunter that may be a length record at least for this year so far. I got a cramp in my finger when scratching on that mouse wheel.

[Catfish]

Hello,
all i can say as a geologist is that CO2 values are indeed rising on an alarming level. They have before, but not in such a short time. If you want to know what the world looks like after global warming you can look at the Perm time interval. It did not extinct all life, but it was bad enough. And it took some hundred-thousand years to develop this climate, after volcanic mass eruptions and the following glasshouse effects.

There are also a lot of chemicals eating away excessive CO2 for a certain time, but as scientific results have also shown those buffers are currently running full, or better said they are becoming saturated. Another buffer are plants, who actually like CO2 and will grow big and fast - but with the eroding forests all over the world, this buffer is made physically smaller.

The current rise of this climate-changing gas is indeed being held back, and buffered, also e.g. by calcium-carbonate in the oceans, and large gas hydrate deposits in Siberia, and the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

The problem is that with rising temperatures, those reservoirs acting as buffers will release their accumulated CO2 again, since they can only hold back its buffers under certain climate conditions (read moderate temperature). Simple chemical reaction due to temperature changes. So rising temperature which will pose an even bigger problem, because it will speed up things badly.
Fact is we ARE screwing up our tiny little world, but people just do not want to hear it. As Stealth Hunter said, the evidence is everywhere, just inform yourself.

I still wonder why the people are so angry at Al Gore - i mean he did not become president, he was/is right, and that he makes some money with it - hey the people at least listen to him - what obviously does NOT happen when scientists speak the truth.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

P.S. b.t.w Stealth Hunter - very good diagrams.

[CaptainHaplo]

Stealth Hunter....

Attacking me with claims of "you stole this from another website illegally" won't help you - since your source is incorrect and your point flawed.
My source was not the link you provided - but THIS one:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_dam n_professor_jones#63704

Which note is an article not copyrighted and in the public domain - so it does not REQUIRE sourcing - though I don't mind showing the source. As you can see - its from the Australian Herald Sun.... News groups that post articles or blogs put them in the public with no copyright. Nice attempt at "attack the person" standard leftist tactic though. Not sayiing you are leftists - but your attempt to use the strategy - and failing - is at least public. Kindly don't call me a thief when the facts show that I am not one.

Now - as for your "these emails prove nothing" and "a judge would laugh you out of his courtroom" - how much have you practiced law? While I am no attorney - I HAVE represented myself in court (and won BTW) - and I can speak to the use of emails specificaly because I DID use emails from another person. The emails are admissable under the rules establishing INTENT and as evidence of a person's willingness to act in a stated way. This applies to US courts, I can't speak to non-US ones. In a US court - the emails regarding deletion would stand showing Jones' INTENT to insure such data could never be viewed by outside sources.

So - what does the first email prove? At the least - an ethical violation - KNOWING that a law exists, and stating that he (Jones) will act in violation to that law should an FoIA request be made. But look closer. Check the timeline... CRU acknowledged an FoIA request regarding AR4 on May 6th (request made dated May 5). On May 9th, Jones emails his co-workers and discusses OPTIONS on what to release in regards to that FoIA request. On May 26, he emails the parties involved and requests they DELETE the emails regarding AR4 that have been requested under the FoIA. Thus - he KNOWINGLY REQUESTED THE DELETION OF DATA THAT WAS PROTECTED UNDER FoIA LAW. That is more than an "ethical violation" - it is a criminal act. But hey, in Stealth Hunter world, there was nothing done wrong....



On a total side note - the FoIA laws do not allow Jones or anyone else to "reconstruct" or alter in any way the data from its original form. The FoIA is there so that what is requested is provided in an untampered with state. His discussed "options" - the two regarding subsets and reconstructed data - would also have violated FoIA law had they been done. The fact is he wanted to, and attempted to, avoid compliance with the law as shown by his own emails.


As for climate-gate.org - you didn't even look at it obviously. Had you done so you would have noted that the site simply compiled and made searchable the raw emails themselves - without commentary pro or con. They even went so far as to make the point that the emails are "alleged" - though the parties involved have not denied the veracity of them. Yet by looking at the "name" of the site you dismiss it. Showing your own highly advanced objectivity and willingness to look at the facts again eh?

For the whitehouse link - try it again. I did it this morning and it opened right up. The full link is http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssets/spec.pdf and opens a PDF file. Perhaps someone else can try it and confirm it since you seem to not be able to reach the data.... To help you out, the part I quoted was at the beginning of page 28 (its a 430 page doc). The report is labelled:

Analytical Perspectives
Budget of the U.S. Government
Fiscal Year 2010

And your right - it is the job of the government to spend money. However, what I put out there was the comparison that was being made between "big oil" money going to "skeptic" groups and the money that is thrown at "believers" - like NOAA. It was in response to the point that Neon made regarding who is funded better.

But again, you knew that - yet you tried to divert it into something else. The whole wizard of oz all over again - and yes, you can assure people the story is make believe, all the while you try and hide behind the curtain and play "mr wizard" to get those who question to just shut up.

As for all the "you have a long way to go" and such.... I would submit that true scientists - as compared to those at the CRU - are interested in accuracy vs specific results. Good scientists don't have problems with people looking at the data and finding flaws, because that makes the SCIENCE stronger long term. If you read the emails, multiple CRU members specifically stated that they did not want to be reviewed by any "outsider" who was skeptical because "all they wanted to do was find something wrong with the science" - as if that was a bad thing to move the science itself forward.

It is the holier than thou, attack the messenger and violate the rules of ethics, law and good science attitude that gives every skeptic and laypersion pause, and a darned good right - to question this mess.

Except for in Stealth Hunter world, where knowingly violating law isn't really wrong... Maybe the SH5 flying unicorn people are there in that world too?

My source was not the link you provided - but THIS one:

So a political blogger who works for murdoch and has a history of misrepresenting things and simply making up "facts".
It just gets better and better.

[Catfish]

Hello,
always believe the mineral oil industry. They often say the same as politicians who come from there - enough proof that this is the truth.

"Just live, don't think for yourselves, spend money and be happy - we will deal with the rest."

Greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

Birds shrink:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/8560694.stm

[CaptainHaplo]

Catfish - neither I nor anyone else that I know of in this thread have said "just believe big oil over the scientists". I simply have pointed out that the data - from the CRU - which has been the leading authority on climate data - is highly suspect, and that environmental science research into continuing the climate change emergency is BIG MONEY.

The data - which is foundational to most of the papers concerning climate change, is suspect - since the actions and motivations of those who make the data available (and note that they only do so to those who will agree that global warming is real for the most part) are demonstratably, in their own words and deeds - show a non-objective approach to the "science".

The facts regarding how much money is spent on research simply shows how, if the whole thing went away tommorow - those involved in putting forth the enhanced greenhouse effect would stand to lose a LOT of money - so there are reasons outside of good science (which their actions have thrown away already) for the veracity of the data to be questioned.

Nobody said "Just live and dont worry about it" - in fact - cleaning up the SCIENCE of it might just solve the majority of the debate. But until the science is clean, it is unconscienable for one side to castigate the other for daring to QUESTION.

[Catfish]

Hello,
first i know you did not say that. But it is crystal clear that some Mr. A. Gore is being hated for speaking the truth, not alone by the oil industry. I guess you know in which business Bush senior was and where Bush junior came from, along with a lot of other presidents.
It is always best to think about who profits most by denying scientific facts, aka climate change or global warming ?
It is not only about CRU, there are hundreds of records worldwide, only a tiny little one of it in Goettingen, but all tell you the same. The creationist's opinion may vary since there are only 7000+ years to be studied ahem.

You wrote:
" ... that environmental science research into continuing the climate change emergency is BIG MONEY ..."

In fact it does not cost too much money to have this studied including causes and effects, by students and universities - from independent universities, that is. Indeed it already has been done, and still is, at least in Europe and especially Scandinavia. This is most basic research, and getting the data is nor the problem and neither expensive. Interpreting the values is not a problem either, the causes are well known - the question is how much will change and in which scale.
That there is evidence of drastic greenhouse gas changes in the atmosphere can indeed be read by anyone who is interested, you do not need (and should not believe) a full blown-up and heavily payed-for "expertise" on that matter from Exxon-Mobil, or some Bush government. The magic word is independent studies.

You do not have a glimpse what it meant money-wise to the oil industry, if some politician ever acted according to the facts - he will be most probably shot before this, or just not being elected. The US system of elections will seldomly let someone rise to power who is not somehow connected with big business like oil or weapons - and since this "glitch" in the succession of the throne happening, Obama is hated just because he's not exactly one of the clan. Insider relationships and "good contacts" to a certain kind of industry will still prevent a real change.
I think Obama is unrealistic about succeeding in convincing the people, but he is one idealistic president, and i envy you for him. To say what he said, in this mire of corruption, lobbies and sheer brute force is really something one has to admire. I only fear something will stop him, soon.
The succession and development of global temperatures, graphs and the perception of something changing is not made up, it is rather the old trick of mankind to put the head in the sand, not think about it and hope for the best.

Regarding those mails it is indeed to be highly appreciated that scientists doubt everything they see, it is a well-learned method to fend off unbased opinions later, and testing theories. The state of science and thus public knowledge only persists, until a better theory based on facts destroys it.
Whether a well-educated non-corrupt US president will ever be able to persist and "win" against the industy and lobbies is an academic question, global warming is not - from a geologist's point of view.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Attacking me with claims of "you stole this from another website illegally" won't help you - since your source is incorrect and your point flawed. My source was not the link you provided - but THIS one:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmist_conspiracy_tthe_emails_that_really_dam n_professor_jones#63704.

You can discredit my sources, can you? Well then, have at it. By all means. That's what we're here for in this thread, after all. And thank you for finally posting a link to your source, even though you never bothered to give original credit to the respective authors.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Which note is an article not copyrighted and in the public domain - so it does not REQUIRE sourcing -

As far as copyright sourcing goes, true. But in a debate, as a rule of thumb, you ALWAYS cite where you gathered your information from. Regardless of copyright.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

though I don't mind showing the source. As you can see - its from the Australian Herald Sun.... News groups that post articles or blogs put them in the public with no copyright.

And in this case, it's Andrew Bolt's self-published blog. As far as academic research is concerned, blogs are not acceptable sources to use. For a prime example, see Wikipedia's stance on the admissibility of blogs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ble_sources.3F

Are weblogs reliable sources?

In many cases, no. Most private weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.


Unfortunately for you, Mr. Bolt is not a professional researcher on the subject of climate change, nor is he a scientist, nor a professional journalist. His integrity as a columnist is questionable at best. There's a great deal of controversy swarming around him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_..._and_criticism

He amounts to little more than the Australian version of a small-time Glenn Beck.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Nice attempt at "attack the person" standard leftist tactic though.

Nice use of the Red Herring fallacy by changing the subject to politics in a double post. But on, the integrity of the poster is just as important to the valid integrity of their post and point. "Attack the person"? Hardly. Just drawing legitimate questions to your posts.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Not sayiing you are leftists - but your attempt to use the strategy - and failing - is at least public. Kindly don't call me a thief when the facts show that I am not one.

Then kindly show your sources once you post information they hold ahead of time rather than being negligent and omitting them, so we don't have to drum on about the issue of copyright infringement like this.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Now - as for your "these emails prove nothing" and "a judge would laugh you out of his courtroom" - how much have you practiced law?

I have been on a jury three (almost made it to four) times and have only had to take one case to court after my van was struck by another driver and he ran from the scene. With that said, how exactly are personal stories relevant to debate? Feel free to disregard this paragraph as a consequence, BTW.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

While I am no attorney - I HAVE represented myself in court (and won BTW) - and I can speak to the use of emails specificaly because I DID use emails from another person.

You may be telling the truth, and then again you may be lying to try and make yourself appear more of an expert on the subject. Which is exactly why I said that we should stick to logic and facts alone and avoid the personal stories, and furthermore why you may feel free to disregard the previous paragraph.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The emails are admissable under the rules establishing INTENT and as evidence of a person's willingness to act in a stated way.

Admissibility is not what's in question, merely the validity of their admissibility. Because, given the facts behind the story and the vagueness of the sections of the emails being used to promote the idea that this whole issue of climate change is some kind of big hoax, it would be very easy for even an amateur lawyer to convince a judge that they cannot be used because the reasons cited by the plantiff were/are flawed, inaccurate, and incorrect to begin with; and if he is indeed a well-respected man of the law, he would overrule their use. But I clearly made my point that we're going about this in the manner that a debate should be carried through in, but that I also feel we should conduct it with the spirit and methodology (at least partially so) of a courtroom.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

This applies to US courts, I can't speak to non-US ones. In a US court - the emails regarding deletion would stand showing Jones' INTENT to insure such data could never be viewed by outside sources.

Yes. And unfortunately, with that said, Dr. Jones is not living in the United States. He's a citizen of the United Kingdom. But on.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So - what does the first email prove? At the least - an ethical violation - KNOWING that a law exists, and stating that he (Jones) will act in violation to that law should an FoIA request be made.

The FoIA must make the request first, however, before he's in violation. And then it must be passed along to him. Not that he was violating anything, because, while he was deleting the data from his computer, he was not really deleting it. Because, as you will recall, he sent copies of it to Scott. Scott's hard drive crashing and the data being lost were the results of an unfortunate incident within the laptop's hardware, not deletion. And we have not yet established when he received the FoIA's message... for some strange reason on your part.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But look closer. Check the timeline... CRU acknowledged an FoIA request regarding AR4 on May 6th (request made dated May 5).

Ok... so when was the request sent to Dr. Jones' office?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

On May 9th, Jones emails his co-workers and discusses OPTIONS on what to release in regards to that FoIA request.

The post I replied to by you did not contain any emails from May 9th... so... what's the deal here?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

On May 26, he emails the parties involved and requests they DELETE the emails regarding AR4 that have been requested under the FoIA.

Again, the only email you included from May was from the 29th.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Thus - he KNOWINGLY REQUESTED THE DELETION OF DATA THAT WAS PROTECTED UNDER FoIA LAW.

Not quite. Again, copies of the same data he deleted were sent to Scott, who was supposed to archive them so they could be openly viewed by the FoIA. Standard procedure amongst scientists in all fields. Your statement earlier that the data was "being destroyed - so that it may NOT be reviewed" still remains nothing but a baseless claim and an assumption from your opinions.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

That is more than an "ethical violation" - it is a criminal act. But hey, in Stealth Hunter world, there was nothing done wrong....

Allow me to reiterate, "The FoIA must make the request first, however, before he's in violation. And then it must be passed along to him. Not that he was violating anything, because, while he was deleting the data from his computer, he was not really deleting it. Because, as you will recall, he sent copies of it to Scott. Scott's hard drive crashing and the data being lost were the results of an unfortunate incident within the laptop's hardware, not deletion. And we have not yet established when he received the FoIA's message... for some strange reason on your part."

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

On a total side note - the FoIA laws do not allow Jones or anyone else to "reconstruct" or alter in any way the data from its original form.

That's not in the Act's clauses. I spent 45 minutes searching for a part where it says that he's not allowed (nor is anybody else) to "reconstruct or alter in any way the data from its original form".

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000..._20000036_en_1

The FoIA is there so that what is requested is provided in an untampered with state. His discussed "options" - the two regarding subsets and reconstructed data - would also have violated FoIA law had they been done. The fact is he wanted to, and attempted to, avoid compliance with the law as shown by his own emails.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for climate-gate.org - you didn't even look at it obviously.

On the contrary, I'm forced to look at it weekly when people dish it out as "proof" that it's all a conspiracy by the evil governments of the world.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Had you done so you would have noted that the site simply compiled and made searchable the raw emails themselves - without commentary pro or con.

Unfortunately, the case is not as simple as this. They only present a fraction of the number of papers out there on climate change, most of which are cited by outsiders as evidence of it all being an elaborate and massive hoax, like the Phil Jones emails we've been discussing, the "hockey stick" graphs, etc. The website itself is a subsidiary of Pajamas Media. Apparently, you don't bother doing much investigation into the people behind these websites (or websites in general).

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

Pajamas Media is an American-based media company that uses the Internet to present and comment on the news.

Founded in 2004 by a network primarily, but not exclusively, made up of conservatives and libertarians led by mystery writer, screenwriter, and blogger Roger L. Simon, and until 2007, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, it was originally intended as a forum to present blogs and blog advertising "with the intention of... aggregating blogs to increase corporate advertising and creating our own professional news service."

So tell me, asides from restating information already available on scientific websites like NASA's Goddard Institute of Research, the CRU, and IPCC that we've read already, what exactly makes them so impressive, better, and different from the science organizations listed- disregarding the fact that they're not even remotely connected to the scientific community in terms of published content and writers/members?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

They even went so far as to make the point that the emails are "alleged" - though the parties involved have not denied the veracity of them. Yet by looking at the "name" of the site you dismiss it.

The latter of course being based upon the assumption that I have done no other investigation on them. And, as evidenced above, I have. A lot more than you have apparently. I reiterate, what exactly makes them so impressive, better, and different from the science organizations I listed above- disregarding the fact that they're not even remotely connected to the scientific community in terms of published content and writers/members?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Showing your own highly advanced objectivity and willingness to look at the facts again eh?

Why I'm flattered. Thank you very much for the compliments.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

For the whitehouse link - try it again. I did it this morning and it opened right up. The full link is http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssets/spec.pdf and opens a PDF file. Perhaps someone else can try it and confirm it since you seem to not be able to reach the data.... To help you out, the part I quoted was at the beginning of page 28 (its a 430 page doc). The report is labelled:

Analytical Perspectives
Budget of the U.S. Government
Fiscal Year 2010

I got in this time. I also see that the U.S. Geological Survey received $140 million for facility renovations and construction projects and for seismic and volcanic activity monitoring systems, $580 million was received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for standards research, development advanced measurement equipment, and construction of more research facilities. What exactly is the problem with all this?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And your right - it is the job of the government to spend money. However, what I put out there was the comparison that was being made between "big oil" money going to "skeptic" groups and the money that is thrown at "believers" - like NOAA. It was in response to the point that Neon made regarding who is funded better.

Scientific organizations are generally funded better because they have very few external income sources, unlike the oil companies (the reason being the business structure each side uses, and what their functions are in the world). We should rightfully be investing more in science and taking more from the large corporations and companies out there. Quarterly, it's they who draw more profits than the science institutes do (even though its probably not necessary to make this point, I might as well; just to those who don't know how science organizations keep themselves alive in terms of financing).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But again, you knew that - yet you tried to divert it into something else.

Hang on a minute. Who was it that started this whole discussion of the "big, evil oil companies" and science research centers and the money that flows behind them? That's right, it was you. Not me. I'll only divert as much as you choose to, because I'm only following the post courses you take- adding in additional information, pointing out inaccuracies and truths, and producing sources when necessary.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The whole wizard of oz all over again - and yes, you can assure people the story is make believe, all the while you try and hide behind the curtain and play "mr wizard" to get those who question to just shut up.

There again with the preaching and speeches. Pretty words that amount to nothing because of their lack of substance. Cutesy little analogies, personifications, the list goes on. But whatever. I'm starting to have fun with this.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

As for all the "you have a long way to go" and such.... I would submit that true scientists - as compared to those at the CRU - are interested in accuracy vs specific results.

Both, actually, are important. The results can show the accuracy during the experiments to have been flawed, the accuracy correlates by determining the results from the experiments. Simple logic and methodology really.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Good scientists don't have problems with people looking at the data and finding flaws, because that makes the SCIENCE stronger long term.

Redundancy: Because Someone Has To State The Obvious.

You CAN look at the results, that's what I've been trying to tell you the ENTIRE TIME we've been having this discussion. If you would invest more of your time looking at organizations like NASA's Goddard Institute, NCAR, UCAR, WCRP, the IRICS, CLIVAR, etc. and less on second-hand websites like Climate-Gate.org that do nothing but repeat some of the information these organizations have posted out there- and I stress the some part. Get the full story from the source, not a bunch of parrots.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If you read the emails, multiple CRU members specifically stated that they did not want to be reviewed by any "outsider" who was skeptical because "all they wanted to do was find something wrong with the science" - as if that was a bad thing to move the science itself forward.

How is science going to move forward by having a bunch of random, anonymous people (who, statistically speaking, are going to be outsiders to the scientific community) running around "reviewing" the data? Not that you can't, because you can access all the information on their websites (an approach you haven't tried yet...). Unless they're qualified or have at least a basic understanding of what they're going to be looking at and commenting on, what business is it of theirs? Furthermore, how good do you really think their skills and judgment would be as a whole? That's my view on the matter. Because you WOULD get people that just wanted to find something wrong with the science. You always do. If it's not climate change, it's evolution, radiometric and carbon dating, aliens, UFOS, the list goes on endlessly.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It is the holier than thou, attack the messenger and violate the rules of ethics, law and good science attitude that gives every skeptic and laypersion pause, and a darned good right - to question this mess.

Then question the methodology, because that's what most of the controversies about climate change are revolving around. For some strange reason, your minority amongst your demographic group believes that it's all a hoax, and that it's all about government control and money. Of course that's a gross oversimplification, but that's the gist of what you and your lot are saying.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Except for in Stealth Hunter world, where knowingly violating law isn't really wrong... Maybe the SH5 flying unicorn people are there in that world too?

Kind of like Haplo World, where he makes the laws and interprets them as he sees fit and promotes them as he pleases. Take a bit of advice, to avoid being humiliated in these kinds of debates, take time to first familiarize yourself with what the main thing your arguing over is about, how it works, what's behind it, etc. For starters, review Chapter 1 of your Physical Science textbook, the thing they were supposed to be using to educate you freshman year in high school.

Furthermore, I suggest you look into the websites and organizations you're fighting against to see for yourself that they're not withholding information to propagate this supposed conspiracy. To name a few:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php
http://www.noaa.gov/index.html
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcrp/wcrp-index.html
http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

Cheers.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

. Showing your own highly advanced objectivity and willingness to look at the facts again eh?

this comming from a YEC is just ********** hilarious

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Morts

this comming from a YEC is just ********** hilarious

Well it certainly can't help his reputation any.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show....php?t=158450&

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I will be presenting the side of scientific creationism. This means that I will bring forward evidence of a "young" earth, rebut as best I can challenges to such evidence with logic and fact, as well as demonstrate how evolution is a flawed theory lacking credible evidence.

How old is the earth? No one was alive to see its beginning, so there is no direct testamony to that beginning. However, a "Young Earth" - aka a planetary age somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old is demonstrated by a number of scientific facts.

#1 Let us look to the sky in the night and see our celestial neighbor - the Moon. The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides. The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon. This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon. This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but more importantly, the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from the Earth. The rate of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981, however, according to Physicist Donald B. DeYoung:

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year.

Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system theorized by evolution.

#2 Oil Wells - When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't.

#3 Our Friend the Sun - Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth.

#4 The Air We Breathe - Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere. The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14. It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old. In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old.

#5 "Mother" Eve's DNA - In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported. This means that "Eve" did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000.

#6 Look at all the People - Today the earth's population doubles about every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.

#7 The Dead Sea - The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.

Additional detail and sources regarding these evidences along with others may be researched at the following links:

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

And we mustn't forget:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...4&postcount=12

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Sure does seem like a double standard - as folks are constantly posting about how GW is "proven" and then not wanting to discuss it either... shall I point to some of Skybirds posts for example? *And I am not talking his 2 recent joke ones

It also seems that if its something the tree huggers like then by all means, post it - use whatever it is to create a soap box about how we evil Americans need to change, or how we are all at fault for the evil in the world, or how if we would just embrace this or that liberal idea then we could all say koombyeya.....

But let someone disagree - and instead of looking at it with a discerning eye, you lefties do the same thing you accuse us of - ignore it.

Thats WHY there is such a division in this wonderful country called America. People don't discuss, they try to ramrod their views. Its like intelligent discussion is a bad thing. Oh that's right - the liberal media and socialists on the left don't want thought and discourse - it would mean the end of their power and influence.

Just thought I'd throw this out there for the sake of Morts' comment.

EDIT: Also, the evil Fascist-Socialist-Communist-Leftist-Liberal government is watching our every move as we speak... put on your tinfoil hats! It destroys the mind reading machine's capabilities.

Just thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of Morts' comment.

You naughty boy, Haplo will put you on his ignore list