Quote from SamH :

Ohhh.. didn't you know? DEFRA set up and fund the UEA CRU. Irrelevant? Really?!

yes really

Quote :

Ahh.. satire. I get it. You're drawing a subtle parallel with those at the UEA CRU, who documented their own efforts to undermine sceptics, using their own influence to ensure they were treated in scientific journals as deniers and crackpots.

in case noone has told you before but scientific journals i mean the real ones the ones that actually matter contain nothing but scientific papers which as i sincerely hope you realise contain nothing but peer reviewed research results and contain none such attacks

Quote :

No, I'm not the conspiracy theorist you'd love me to be.

then explain to me the strong correlation between you being in every conspiracy thread ans always supporting the latest conspiracy theory?
yes its just a correlation based on a smallish number of threads but is certainly become statistically significant at this point

Quote from xaotik :

I think when people say that they sort of mean the general environmentalist trend and the products/services (which they often cannot afford) that revolve around it and not so much "climatology" as the study of climate being an industry.

i suspect the same but its neither climatology nor at all relevant unless someone can show that any of the scientists were talking about owns a carbon credit business or something similarly idiotic that puts actual large sums of money in his own pockets
i might even be convinced if someone could show that they use their grant money financed climate model calculating supercomputers to play quake on a 50 monitor setup although i doubt that anyone can come up with anything of the like

Quote :

Sticking to my previous "oh woe is us in the age of pricetags" theme I think I can understand how peopl confuse the two - many branches of science seem to get intertwined immediately with the consumer products that result from their study.

which goes well with my own previous "dont talk about science unless you have at least a vague idea what it is" theme

Quote from BlueFlame :

Why do you refer to CO2 as a pollutant? It's plant food, and plants convert CO2 into O2 thus canceling any 'pollution' out. Of course Volcanoe's aren't the CAUSE of "global warming" but notice how it USED to be called "global warming" but NOW it's "climate change" they are saying the planet is cooling now, rather than heating up as they used to say. If this alone does not show to you that it's bullshit you really aren't asking enough questions.

I don't think the alternative to bad science is simplistic thinking. I think it's important to KNOW IF we CAN know what our effect on the climate is. You can't say that you've known all along that it's all nonsense because the fact is that you COULDN'T know. Sure, you might have suspected or you might have been unconvinced because you couldn't see (have not been allowed to see) the data that goes to make the conclusions that have been drawn, but you didn't ACTUALLY know. Don't bother pretending you did.

Recent revelations in the field of climatology seem to show problems that, according to academics in other fields, are endemic in scientific study more broadly, particularly regarding advocacy research and peer review. So perhaps a new set of rules/guidelines for scientific research and review is needed. Not all science is bad science, surely? But the suggestion seems to be that the problems are not wholly limited to climatology.

Scientists labelling scientists, who don't see/can't find correlations between human behaviour and global warming, as "deniers" is unacceptable behaviour. Much if not all of the poor and loaded language in the climate sciences has come from pro-AGW scientists, and is not helpful at all to the pro-AGW cause.

I'm neither pro-AGW nor pro-"denier". I've been suspicious of the nature of what I gleaned over time to be advocacy research in climate sciences, and I've recently discovered that there are some REAL questions about the science being done and about the scientists that have done it. I want those questions resolved.

Quote from Shotglass :

yes really

yes, REALLY. You are displaying almost epic levels of ignorance. You refused to believe it was political, yet when confronted with the proof that the CRU was set up by a POLITICAL organisation you refuse to believe it. Seriously, I can't believe what I'm reading.

and don't say 'omfg cite a source', Me and SamH have a far better idea of how the UK government works than you. So I can use your logic - you have no idea how the UK government works, so you can't comment on it. Fair enough, seeing as you don't want us to comment on something we obviously know absolutely nothing about!

name one single scientific institute that isnt at paid for (at least partly or entirely if working in a field that produces results you cant sell) by government

Quote from Shotglass :

name one single scientific institute that isnt at paid for (at least partly or entirely if working in a field that produces results you cant sell) by government

I honestly can't believe I'm reading this hypocritical bollocks

Quote from BlueFlame :

Why do you refer to CO2 as a pollutant?

I do? News to me. I'd call the act of releasing into the atmosphere huge amounts of CO2 that would otherwise not be released "polluting", but it depends on context. Either way I haven't even used the word in this thread.

Quote from BlueFlame :

more regurgitated insanity

So we're just going to go through these myths one by one now then? Let me help:
- Scientists were predicting cooling in the 70s!
- The sun is getting hotter - look at mars and venus heating up!
- Methane and water vapour contribute more to global warming than CO2!
- We can't even tell what the weather is going to be like, we obviously can't predict climate change!
- It was cold here last winter, the planet is obviously not heating up!
- Greenland was once all green and stuff!

Now, with those out of the way, would you care to back up your claims that volcanoes contribute more to climate change (I totally did that on purpose) than the CO2 we release into the atmosphere?

Quote from Shotglass :

in case noone has told you before but

Do you want me to start responding condescendingly at you, too?

Quote from Shotglass :

scientific journals i mean the real ones the ones that actually matter contain nothing but scientific papers which as i sincerely hope you realise contain nothing but peer reviewed research results and contain none such attacks

You're just demonstrating complete ignorance of the content of the emails that have been released to the public domain. There are threads of discussion in those, about how to gate-keep peer reviews, how to kill off journals that publish peers that have evidence to counter the CRU's conclusions and how to "get rid" of journal editors who fail to demonstrate supplication to the CRU's pro-AGW papers.

Quote from Shotglass :

then explain to me the strong correlation between you being in every conspiracy thread ans always supporting the latest conspiracy theory?
yes its just a correlation based on a smallish number of threads but is certainly become statistically significant at this point

My involvement in the WTC conspiracy theory threads and the Zeitgeist threads was, if you'd been paying attention, wholly disputing those silly conspiracy theories. You should examine your evidential data far more closely if you're going to draw and publish conclusions. No, really.

As far as the FIA/Ferrari "conspiracy" goes, I think the material facts of the last Concorde Agreement, as revealed by the FIA since, speak for themselves.

Quote from Shotglass :

which goes well with my own previous "dont talk about science unless you have at least a vague idea what it is" theme

How about.. don't talk about the values of scientific integrity unless you hold them dear. Is that more condescending than you, or just equally?

Quote from mookie427 :

the CRU was set up by a POLITICAL organisation you refuse to believe it

Hold on. The CRU calls itself a part of the UEA. So, this nefarious political organisation in question is? The government?

Quote from SamH :

..snip...

Sam it's evident he won't take anything we've both told him seriously...it's plainly obvious he hasn't bothered to read into the CRU whistleblowing at all and is attempting to demonstrate that he knows more about the way the UK's climatology industry works.

I do hesitate before getting into prolonged arguments with people on here (no, really!) but in this case I make an exception for a massive display of ignorance at the issue.

Quote from xaotik :

Hold on. The CRU calls itself a part of the UEA. So, this nefarious political organisation in question is? The government?

DEFRA, which is the government's department for the environment, farming and rural affairs. They helped set the CRU up along with, I believe, the met office, with the CRU integrated into the University of East Anglia

Quote from xaotik :

Hold on. The CRU calls itself a part of the UEA. So, this nefarious political organisation in question is? The government?

DEFRA is a politicised arm of the current British government. The UEA houses the CRU, but the funding for it comes from DEFRA. Universities in the UK are these days otherwise largely self-funding through student tuition fees. Just FYI, since the higher education landscape in the UK has changed significantly over the last 15-20 years.

Quote from mookie427 :

DEFRA, which is the government's department for the environment, farming and rural affairs. They helped set the CRU up along with, I believe, the met office, with the CRU integrated into the University of East Anglia

Surely you have to acknowledge the fact that there are many organizations out there that are setup either by a government or a government's department. That doesn't necessarily mean at all times that they are pursuing a political goal.

Quote from mookie427 :

the way the UK's climatology industry works

How does the UK climatology industry work and to what does it aim at? What is it that they are manufacturing (either tangible or intangible) that is worth all this?

Quote from SamH :

DEFRA is a politicised arm of the current British government.

Why do you assign it a "politicised" attribute? What makes it so?

Quote from wien :

So we're just going to go through these myths one by one now then? Let me help:
- Scientists were predicting cooling in the 70s!
- The sun is getting hotter - look at mars and venus heating up!
- Methane and water vapour contribute more to global warming than CO2!
- We can't even tell what the weather is going to be like, we obviously can't predict climate change!
- It was cold here last winter, the planet is obviously not heating up!
- Greenland was once all green and stuff!

Now, with those out of the way, would you care to back up your claims that volcanoes contribute more to climate change (I totally did that on purpose) than the CO2 we release into the atmosphere?

I don't need to. Using your own logic, methane and water vapour outputs can't be controlled by humans using your logic again, simple evapouration of the ocean is causing more to global warming than CO2 yes, but please tell me what the major cause of global warming/climate change is, because of course, you know everything their is to know, and you're clearly a professionalism in using sarcasm when you don't have an arguement.

Quote from mookie427 :

I honestly can't believe I'm reading this hypocritical bollocks

ah yes the intatblags pet word
use it and you can suddenly tell yourself that everything anyone else said is bollocks

Quote from SamH :

Do you want me to start responding condescendingly at you, too?

im surprised it took that long
also please excuse my lack of taking a thread that has the word whatever-gate in its title seriously

Quote :

You're just demonstrating complete ignorance of the content of the emails that have been released to the public domain. There are threads of discussion in those, about how to gate-keep peer reviews, how to kill off journals that publish peers that have evidence to counter the CRU's conclusions and how to "get rid" of journal editors who fail to demonstrate supplication to the CRU's pro-AGW papers.

as i said befoe this whole thing is a new dimension of scientific scandal that doesnt make it any of the things youve made it out to be though

Quote :

My involvement in the WTC conspiracy theory threads and the Zeitgeist threads was, if you'd been paying attention, wholly disputing those silly conspiracy theories. You should examine your evidential data far more closely if you're going to draw and publish conclusions. No, really.

my not even bothering to read those threads caused by the extreme stupidity displayed by anyone supporting such theories and my refusing to acknowledge such stupidity even exists doesnt diminish the only slightly less loony conspiracy theories youve been supporting over the years

Quote :

As far as the FIA/Ferrari "conspiracy" goes, I think the material facts of the last Concorde Agreement, as revealed by the FIA since, speak for themselves.

id sure like to see that line of the concorde agreement that reads "were goning to rule against mclaren all the time"

Quote :

How about.. don't talk about the values of scientific integrity unless you hold them dear.

who said i do not hold them dear? im just not at all deluding myself into thinking that scientists arent human

Quote :

Is that more condescending than you, or just equally?

not even remotely either of them

Quote from SamH :

Universities in the UK are these days otherwise largely self-funding through student tuition fees. Just FYI, since the higher education landscape in the UK has changed significantly over the last 15-20 years.

this
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2009/qrfund.htm
and many other articles you can easily google with something as simple as "uk university" on how reduced public spaneding after the credit crunch greatly impacts uks universities claims otherwise

Quote from BlueFlame :

I don't need to. Using your own logic, methane and water vapour outputs can't be controlled by humans using your logic again, simple evapouration of the ocean is causing more to global warming than CO2 yes, but please tell me what the major cause of global warming/climate change is, because of course, you know everything their is to know, and you're clearly a professionalism in using sarcasm when you don't have an arguement.

So that's a "no" then?

Quote from xaotik :

Surely you have to acknowledge the fact that there are many organizations out there that are setup either by a government or a government's department. That doesn't necessarily mean at all times that they are pursuing a political goal.

Oh of course, but this is a case of one that does have a political goal.

Quote :

How does the UK climatology industry work and to what does it aim at? What is it that they are manufacturing (either tangible or intangible) that is worth all this?

At the moment, the main manufacturing output is constant propaganda. I know it doesn't sound an exceptionally brilliant answer but that is what it is. The endless striving for windfarms (and resulting greenwash) even in places where their efficiency is absolutely awful is increasing as the alarmists attempt to cover up this scandal by publishing even more reports, however laughable, that it is indeed happening and we are all going to die unless we kill all the animals, install a million wind farms and revert back to living in caves.

An interesting point, it is widely known that water vapour does more harm than CO2...so, all these hybrid cars that produce only water vapour are presumably doing much more damage to the environment? Or have I missed something?

Quote from Shotglass :

ah yes the intatblags pet word
use it and you can suddenly tell yourself that everything anyone else said is bollocks

You called our views wrong and stupid, I have put up replying to your ignorance politely for long enough.

Quote :

my not even bothering to read those threads caused by the extreme stupidity displayed by anyone supporting such theories and my refusing to acknowledge such stupidity even exists doesnt diminish the only slightly less loony conspiracy theories youve been supporting over the years

So by not even bothering to read the 9/11 thread you make the assumption that Sam is some loony conspiracy theorist?

Quote from mookie427 :

Or have I missed something?

Why don't you do a little research before throwing these Glen Becksque questions up into the air?

Quote from wien :

Why don't you do a little research before throwing these Glen Becksque questions up into the air?

In case you were wondering, I was asking whether it was the case. I wasn't stating anything, I wanted someone to reply sensibly to the question posed, whether it is true that cars that produce only water vapour could cause more damage...The question just popped into my head so I didn't have the opportunity to do any sort of research into it

Quote from xaotik :

Surely you have to acknowledge the fact that there are many organizations out there that are setup either by a government or a government's department. That doesn't necessarily mean at all times that they are pursuing a political goal.

Absolutely. Which is why the recent revelations are so important, because of the implications of politicised (advocacy) research being performed under the banner of genuine science. It's an issue of scientific integrity where the cart (the policy) is placed before the horse (the science) - where the conclusion is drawn, and the science is bent until it fits the conclusion.

Quote from xaotik :

How does the UK climatology industry work and to what does it aim at? What is it that they are manufacturing (either tangible or intangible) that is worth all this?

That's the fundamental question that now needs answering. Because it's now evident that the science that has been performed is not the robust thing we've been led to believe it is, according to these scientists' own documentation and emails, the question is, now, how far OUT is the science upon which we're building our ecological futures on a worldwide scale and at budgeted costs well into the hundreds of billions.

Unfortunately it is the UEA CRU's conclusions, which it now transpires haven't been subject to the usual peer review process, and where the data used for the conclusions has been withheld (also, as you know, contrary to scientific practices) which are the basis of the IPCC, which in turn is the basis for the up-coming Copenhagen summit.

So, in the simplest of terms, the whole of the world's eco-strategy is based on what is apparently bad, possibly falsely alarmist, science.

dammit SamH puts things so much better than me.....

Quote from mookie427 :

Oh of course, but this is a case of one that does have a political goal.

What is this political goal? Where I come from a political goal is usually "get us re-elected" or the longer version "get our cronies rich and happy so we can get re-elected". What is theirs?

Quote from mookie427 :

At the moment, the main manufacturing output is constant propaganda. I know it doesn't sound an exceptionally brilliant answer but that is what it is.

See, that doesn't cut it for an industry to be created. An industry has to have a product that is sold and if it is to survive it has to be bought. Therefore the phrase "climatology industry" has to hide that last bit somewhere. Is someone really profiting, economically, from all this? Is that someone profiting part of a political party or supporting one? Then you have a political goal and something you can refer to as industry as well.

If not, then you have to focus your efforts on finding the root of it and not plod around with generalized phrases and statements. Like this one:

Quote from mookie247 :

An interesting point, it is widely known that water vapour does more harm than CO2...so, all these hybrid cars that produce only water vapour are presumably doing much more damage to the environment? Or have I missed something?

I mean really: where on earth did that come from?

EDIT:
Since you replied while I was replying to the reply made to my reply, I gather it's an honest question. If so then ok - scratch that. I'll just stand to "find the root of it all" as my closing statement.

Quote from mookie427 :

In case you were wondering, I was asking whether it was the case. I wasn't stating anything, I wanted someone to reply sensibly to the question posed, whether it is true that cars that produce only water vapour could cause more damage...The question just popped into my head so I didn't have the opportunity to do any sort of research into it

Fair enough. These threads just leave me all sarcastic and spiteful.

While water vapour is indeed a very strong greenhouse gas it also returns to the earth as rain within about a week (on average) of being released. CO2 needs between 50 - 200 years to do the same round trip. Any CO2 we release today will come in addition to the CO2 we released over the last 50 - 200 years, and that way it's concentration increases. The vapour consentration of the air is also almost exclusively dependent on the temperature. Water vapour does not cause warming in itself, it's concentration just follows along as the temperature changes.

Quote from xaotik :

What is this political goal? Where I come from a political goal is usually "get us re-elected" or the longer version "get our cronies rich and happy so we can get re-elected". What is theirs?

get us and our cronies rich sounds about right...the money involved is staggering.

Quote :

See, that doesn't cut it for an industry to be created. An industry has to have a product that is sold and if it is to survive it has to be bought. Therefore the phrase "climatology industry" has to hide that last bit somewhere. Is someone really profiting, economically, from all this? Is that someone profiting part of a political party or supporting one? Then you have a political goal and something you can refer to as industry as well.

hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just using a commonplace term

Quote :

I mean really: where on earth did that come from?

like I said, it was just a thought that popped into my head. No grounding in fact or anything just a random thought...

Quote from xaotik :

What is this political goal?

Corporate emissions taxes, "Cap and Trade", carbon footprint-based taxes (air travel, car travel, fuel [home and car]), carbon credits.. there are lots of possibilities once you have instilled the belief that carbon emissions are a tangible commodity. I'm sure there are more, but these are some of the main ones in planning stages at the moment.