1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by MojoMan, Nov 28, 2009.

Tags:
Page 3 of 10
  1. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    It appears that Dr. Masters is F.O.S.:

    NCDC: October USA – temperature 3rd coldest on record, wettest ever on record

    Here is the link to the original report at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center:

    State of the Climate - National Overview - October 2009
     
    #41 MojoMan, Nov 30, 2009
  2. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,183
    Likes Received:
    20,334
    you realize that very few natural phenomenon that involve numerous variable are linear? In fact none of them are.

    Complex systems always have short-term variability - that's why you can't just look at the last day or a few data points to make a judgement.

    What you are doing is like looking at one week of the Dow Jones to declare a recession over or that the economy is tanking.

    Just really poor way to analyze anything.
     
    #42 Sweet Lou 4 2, Nov 30, 2009
  3. Xenon

    Xenon Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    759
    #43 Xenon, Nov 30, 2009
  4. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Fair enough. You are correct.

    However, Sweet Lou insists that a single month's data should not be considered in this way. Although it is not a problem for me to keep it in context that we are only talking about one month, it is apparently important to Lou that this be emphasized.

    Since Sweet Lou went out of his way to emphasize that point with regards to my previous post, surely he will want to emphasize the same point with regards to your post.

    Right Lou?
     
    #44 MojoMan, Nov 30, 2009
  5. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,183
    Likes Received:
    20,334
    It doesn't matter, Global Warm Trends have to be looked at 20 year periods - not 1 month. A warm month or a cool month means nothing.

    That's not how science works. We're talking about a change in one degree on a decades time scale. While that one degree has huge impact, you can't detect it on a month to month basis.

    Like I said, it's like trying to do 50 year investment planing based on what the stock market did last week.
     
    #45 Sweet Lou 4 2, Nov 30, 2009
  6. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Then why is it so hard for you to understand that the data upon which you are relying to disprove AGW is only a ten year subset of the data that shows AGW is happening?
     
    #46 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 1, 2009
  7. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    I have never tried to "disprove" AGW using a ten year data set or any other data set. Nor am I aware of anyone else who has tried to do so either.
     
    #47 MojoMan, Dec 1, 2009
  8. MoonDogg

    MoonDogg Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 1999
    Messages:
    5,167
    Likes Received:
    495
    [​IMG]
     
    #48 MoonDogg, Dec 1, 2009
    1 person likes this.
  9. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    #49 rocketsjudoka, Dec 1, 2009
  10. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Are you freaking kidding me? In the last GW thread you participated in, you posted the same claims (that AGW has stopped and the Earth has cooled) based on ten years' worth of data along with a fictional picture of what the Earth may have looked like 12,000 years ago. You felt so strongly about it that you posted it several times in response to many different posters.
     
    #50 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 1, 2009
  11. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Really.

    This may be a point too subtle for you to grasp, but there is a big difference between "disproving" the existence of any anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW), and pointing out significant flaws in the theories and methods currently being promoted by the so-called scientists who are leading the AGW alarmist movement.

    Of course, the flaws and shortcomings of the AGW theories currently popular with the left have been disputed and criticized continuously for a long time. But the release of these emails taken from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia blows the whole game wide open.

    And the latest revelation that the raw data has been dumped is, quite frankly, a mortal blow to the credibility of these scientists. The whole AGW alarmist thesis has been promoted on the premise that these scientists "are the experts, just trust us." Obviously, after these revelations, that premise is no longer viable.

    You and your scientist worshiping brethren can try and hang on for as long as you like, but the time for reform has come. The "just trust us" days are over with. It is time for reform. And any self-proclaimed scientist who truly is one will back these needed reforms.

    Also, since the credibility of these so-called scientists has been severely damaged, the credibility of their theories has been diminished as well. It is time to hold the entire climate science field accountable to truly scientific standards that are not just applied and overseen by AGW "believers," but also by AGW skeptics and non-partisans alike. All theories, hypotheses, forecasts, findings and whatever else must also be carefully scrutinized in the open and within an established review framework that includes skeptics, believers and non-partisan scientists. This framework must have controls built in to ensure that the kinds of unscientific conduct that have been practiced by the scientists who authored the emails in question cannot be conducted in secret or without proper accountability again.

    Of course, this is a whole brand new world for the field of climate science. The changes will not come overnight. But proposals for government action related to AGW, if any is in fact necessary, will not be supportable by credible science on this topic until this kind of process is implemented and accomplished.

    Quite a few scientists are lining up to call for just such reforms. This has all been a huge embarrassment to serious scientists. It reflects badly on science as a whole, and by association, on the scientific profession and scientists generally. Among scientists who are at heart men and women of integrity, the desire to see this mess cleaned up this is a matter of professional pride.
     
    #51 MojoMan, Dec 1, 2009
  12. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    You are delusional.
     
    #52 GladiatoRowdy, Dec 1, 2009
  13. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    Yes really. You wrote:
    I provided the link where you did that very thing. There is nothing subtle to grasp there. If you aren't trying to disprove it why are you pointing out the flaws in it?

    Do you actually support the theory or are you trying to debunk it?
     
    #53 rocketsjudoka, Dec 1, 2009
  14. Depressio

    Depressio Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    6,416
    Likes Received:
    366
    Fixed it for you.

    And why do you continue to call them "so-called scientists"? Do you think they aren't scientists because they don't have their PhD's or other degrees or because you just don't agree with them?
     
    #54 Depressio, Dec 1, 2009
  15. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Heads begin to roll....

    This scandal has made crystal clear the need for major reforms in the processes related to climate science. Getting rid of hucksters like Phil Jones at the CRU is a good and necessary first step. He may be the first, but he is unlikely to be the last.
     
    #55 MojoMan, Dec 1, 2009
  16. AntiSonic

    AntiSonic Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 1999
    Messages:
    8,318
    Likes Received:
    57
    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nEiLgbBGKVk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
     
    #56 AntiSonic, Dec 1, 2009
  17. Samurai Jack

    Samurai Jack Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    23
    I was waiting for someone to post this.

    See comrades, even conservatives have a sense of humor.
     
    #57 Samurai Jack, Dec 1, 2009
  18. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,183
    Likes Received:
    20,334
    By the way, the current "cool-off" was predicted by some models already - here's an article from two years ago - I think you should read it.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...l-warming-forecast-predicts-rise-in-2014.html

    Again, keep in mind that this is 2 years ago which means the model is likely older. Also note that it's the first model to actually account for current sea surface temps, sun output variations, el nino's, AND greenhouse gases.
     
    #58 Sweet Lou 4 2, Dec 1, 2009
  19. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    The cooling has been going on since 1998. So, they configured a model to predict it after the reality was already becoming clear. What a bunch of BS.
     
    #59 MojoMan, Dec 2, 2009
  20. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,388
    Likes Received:
    9,306
    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FgPUpIBWGp8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FgPUpIBWGp8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
     
    #60 basso, Dec 2, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 10

Share This Page