no it isnt and your ignorance of how science actually works shows more and more
sure its a scandal... in science
in actual fact all they have to gain from this is a phd and have a lot more to lose ie ****ing up their entire career as they did
thats all there is to it
i have and ive drawn my conclusions based on the experiences i have and the things people have told me and the methods ive witnessed on how they went about their thesis when things didnt look like they would work out in time
You could always not start on him automatically? Just an observation.
Ignorance. You're basically saying that anyone who hasn't spent ages involved in the science isn't allowed an opinion on the matter. What about the multitude of other people in this thread who share my view and the view of those who've drawn THEIR own conclusions from the CRU emails? Are you prepared to dismiss EVERY person in this thread?
hold up a sec shotglass I want to see if I can clear some things up for you over your series of posts
This is international now. Read SamH's post up the top of the page about the CRU in New Zealand doing the same thing. Governments all over the world spend trillions in total on preventative measures based on a lie. It may be a small research group but it is internationally recognised, it's size doesn't make it any less important.
so.....how much time have YOU spent working in any sort of scientific field? Before you rubbish mine and others views take a look at how hypocritical you are being.
I think you'll find he replied to a post I made, which was not adressing him anyway. (Yes I did say 'oh god, here we go' when he first showed up, and that was because it was inevitable the thread would end up like this).
I was very disapointed to find that his reply contained the same repetetive stuff he had been banging on about for several months, he also managed to bring Karting (with the help of Tristan) and how everyone is so mean to him into the thread, both of which were completely irrelevant.
He brings it upon himself, he really does, and so has no right to complain.
It wasn't inevitable, as he replied to a post you made you shouldn't have risen to it and cause a good thread to get derailed. I hate to try and be a mediator but in all honesty this is getting silly now.
He's not annoying anybody else in this thread except you it seems. It doesn't always happen, you MAKE it happen. Just put him on your ignore list and be done with it.
I've read this one, and all I see is you and Intrepid having a stupid argument and the occasional on-topic post from other members. I specified this thread and I'm not bringing other threads into it.
Yeah man, you never even mentioned the word 'bandit', which he thinks is the coolest word he's ever heard.
As for the BBC: The whole world consumes and enjoys the best of their output, and I think it's culturally important to keep producing that stuff. Stuff like Top Gear, Doctor Who, natural history shows, comedy, etc. Hell, if we weren't still funding the BBC most countries in the world wouldn't know who the **** we were.
It didn't take a genius to figure out these figures are being manipulated or even made up. Volcano = 1985720986093287904587038705987098509x100000000000000000000000000000000 CO2mg so, you do the math.
It doesn't have to be about a real conspiracy of the media. What's in fact happening (imo) is that the MSM has a long way to go in playing catchups. There's a lot of history behind this story- the leaked emails are simply confirming what many people have been warning about for a long time now. Environmental reporters have basically decided to go along with official IPCC doctrine (appeal to authority) while all sceptics have been conveniently dumped into the right-wing/exxon/tobacco scientist/misinformation etc bin of non-relevance, and the Grand Narrative of global warming doom has been spinning happily ever since.
But of course things are more complicated than that.
no im basically saying anyone who hasnt wokred in scinece should expect to be told that his oppinion is wrong and stupid if it clearly is
1) politics has absolutely nothing to do with the matter
2) just because one or two research groups used creative data slection methods doesnt mean the whole field is suddenly bunk
3) again look at venus think about whether youd want to work towards living in a similar atmosphere and decide
with my current work im hoping to get out of it in a few years with a doctorate in hand and have friends and family who spent years or their life in science
2) You're right, it doesn't. But imo you're using 'creative' as a euphemism for 'biased' and 'misleading'. Please refer to point 1.
3) I'm not sure why you want to keep bringing up Venus, Shot. Earth and Venus are obviously two very different planets (similar in some respects, yes). But Venus has 300,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth. I don't know how you can compare 96% atmospheric CO2 (Venus) to Earths (0.038%). Also the atmospheric pressure of Venus is 95 times that of Earth. Also, it's much closer to the sun and a typical afternoon there lasts 1000s of hours.
Mars also has a high atmospheric CO2 content (similar to Venus at 95%), but I wouldn't be thinking about holidaying there without packing some nice thick socks and a wooly jumper.
Not sure what you're point is. I guess you've been listening to James Hansen a bit too much. He's been known to be wrong about things from time to time, you know.
That attitude is exactly the sort of one I hate from people who believe in climate change religiously. Instead of engaging in a proper debate it just turns into a flame war. The opinions displayed by everybody in this thread except you (ignoring of course the 5haz/Intrepid spat) must be wrong and stupid then? Of course they aren't, it's called a different view to your own, so get used to them.
fair enough, but that doesn't mean you have to revert to the attitude displayed beforehand. Try actually explaining why you think it is wrong (without the redundant Venus comparison), and engage in a proper debate.
it doesnt youre getting 2 unrelated matters muddled up
again youre getting the matter of doing something to futher your tehsis muddled up with what the great unwashed (ie largly people who have no idea of science ot climate) make of it
yes the 2 arent compareable in many repects but it serves as a good example for anyone claiming that co2 isnt an issue at all
mars also has 3 magnitudes less athmospheric pressure than earth (as compared to only 1-2 magnitudes in difference on venus)
never heard of the guy
i dont follow sensationalist media on such topics much at all
oh for crying out loud besides 3 one liners (one of which is actually in this very post i havent even talked about global warming at all
actually reading what youre responding to might help
what ive been saying is that you and sam (who has a long standing reputation of falling for every conspiracy theory there is no matter how silly) especially but others as well here make this scandal in the scientific world into something political which it never was and never will be
By your way of thinking, anyone who isn't a rabbi, a priest, an archbishop or a doctor of theology etc, should also accept being told what to believe regarding religion. They're people who are experts in their field, after all.
Yet, just as in religion, in climate science different "leaders" say different things. Not all scientists studying climatology are supportive of the assertions made by the IPCC or the UEA CRU.
However, evidence now shows that those peers who questioned the findings of the UEA CRU have been subject to campaigns by pro-AGW scientists to marginalise them, prevent their own findings being published in peer review journals and so on. Evidence also shows that the scientists who, for example, created the "hockey stick" graph have actively avoided releasing, and have determined to destroy, the data behind their findings, despite this being a fundamental requirement of the principle process of scientific research and review.
The UEA CRU, having (and hiding) the largest data mesh of global temperatures in their GCM, is THE main proponent of the theory of AGW (man-made global warming) and provided the body of "evidence" and drew the conclusions upon which the IPCC has been based.
I can't believe you even said that . I've attached a hint. This is one of the documents released by the mole (the security industry seems satisfied this was an "inside job"), created by the British government's DEFRA, as an instruction manual on how to coerce public opinion on AGW. Absorb.
You clearly have no clue who the UEA CRU is, nor have any comprehension of how much influence it has, worldwide, on the climatology industry.
Silly.
Then you, of all people, should be the most offended by the activities of these "pre-eminent" scientists. Scientists do, or should, expect all scientists to be above reproach. Any science conducted in the manner it's been conducted at the UEA CRU should make you, as a scientist irrespective of your own field, absolutely furious with these so-called scientists for dirtying the integrity of science in the broadest sense.
It amazes me that you're not disgusted, that you're so accepting of their transgressions. You're a scientist? Are you sure?
I'm not saying that it's all about politics, or all money, or all stubberness in proving one's pet theory. To me they are all relevent factors although I woulnd't be able to say which is the most important for any given individual. You have to admit that climate change is the most politically charged scientific issue of our time. Even if the scientists involved in this latest scandal are not by their natures political (very dubious and goes against the evidence), they've been framing they're adversaries in political terms from day one. So to say this isn't political, I just can't agree. I wish politics wasn't involved- but there is a political reality and you can't just brush it aside.
A lot of scientists would be and are very appalled and surprised at the attitudes shown by these researchers at EAU CRU. That they are acting more as advocates than scientists. There is a lot of concern from them about how best to present their research in terms of how it's going to affect policy. There's ample evidence of this in the email conversations.
I dont have time to read all of this post and comment on all of it, I just want to add a few points though to address some things raised in other posts.
Wind Turbines: Are so innefficient that they take around 14 years to generate enough power to pay for their cost of manufacture and installation. Sea based turbines (where we are headed) are even more expensive to install.
Nuclear Power Waste: If we all used nuclear power the amount of waste produced by 1 person for all the power we consume in our lives would be roughly the size of a marble.
The more efficient your power production, the less power you have to produce, on an exponential basis.
Britain WILL be buying power from Europe by 2020, and by 2050 will be almost utterly dependant upon it. We have not done enough, and it's already too late for us to start building projects without entering a short fall. This strategic weekness will change the shape of the G8.
That was "released by the mole"? What bullshit. Here, apparently the mole has his own website with all the happy-green-marketing crap online in one handy page:
It's included in the FOIA2009.zip, along with emails and other documents, released by "the mole". No bullshit. So Futerra put it up on their website as well. The content is the key.
All honest scientists are as outraged about this scandal as all honest civilians are about any act of shoplifting. It happens on a daily basis. The shoplifters are caught, they get their penalty, life goes on.
I'd like to ask you what you want to achieve in this discussion. There seems to be something very close to your heart but I don't know what it is you're trying to convince the world of.
I want the truth. I want environmental policy to be based on good science. I want to pay taxes only where they're justified and I don't want a tax burden when they're not, or when they're based on a fallacy or politically tainted science.
I want the dirty science exposed so it can be removed from the sphere of influence, where it's leading policy, and I want genuine scientific study to be conducted in its place, with all the scientific condiments in place - transparency, true peer review etc.
If the truth is that it's impossible to determine if AGW is an actuality, I want to know that because it's important. If GOOD science, conducted properly, determines that AGW is a reality, I want to get behind that science with confidence and determination. I want real science, not a new religion.
Perfect the self-sustainable loop thus reducing greenhouse emissions?
Indeed it is, however posting it in a sensationalist way as you did sort of made it appear like it was some sort of top secret indoctrination document.
. I've attached a hint. This is one of the documents released by the mole (the security industry seems satisfied this was an "inside job"), created by the British government's DEFRA, as an instruction manual on how to coerce public opinion on AGW.