The warmers are becoming skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hallo Alfie

Banned
Hallo Alfie
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
10,691
Found this

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php

Clive Crook on climategate, a few extracted comments as follows:

"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."

...plain statistical incompetence.."

"And these guys call the other side "deniers"."

"The scientists have let them down, and made the anti-science crowd look wise. That is outrageous."

"... (if) this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that."

'Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot.'


It seems to me that support is swaying. Climategate remains a hot topic on the internet, across politics, economics and public opinion.
Yet the warmers remain in denial over the seriousness of the subject.

I think Crook has done a good job in summarising the thoughts of many.
 
I think that:

1. An investigation will begin.

2. The climate change deniers will say that the investigation will support their claims.

3. The investigation will conclude that the whole mess was blown out of proportion.

4. The climate change deniers will say that you couldn't expect anything else when climate change is so ingrained into the minds of pseudo-skeptics.

5. Everything will carry on much as before.
 
Alfie, for someone who keeps insisting that the forum for discussing Global Warming is 'that-a-way', you certainly seem to keep opening new threads about it in the Current Events forum.

Heed thy own advice?
 
AA, just like with your Melanie Phillips thread, you have picked someone who was allready on the AGW doubters side and argued that cos he is still on that side that opinions are changing. Regardless of the facts of AGW and "climategate" your evidence does not match your claim.
 
I don't dare even have an opinion on the topic.

When someone knows what they're talking about, get back to me.
 
bignickel said:
Alfie, for someone who keeps insisting that the forum for discussing Global Warming is 'that-a-way', you certainly seem to keep opening new threads about it in the Current Events forum.

Heed thy own advice?
Click to expand...

Wrong. I say " science threads are thataway>>>" when we are discussing politics or social Issues. Not global warming (science) as you state.
This issue goes far beyond just science.


brodski said:
AA, just like with your Melanie Phillips thread, you have picked someone who was allready on the AGW doubters side and argued that cos he is still on that side that opinions are changing. Regardless of the facts of AGW and "climategate" your evidence does not match your claim.
Click to expand...

Who is Melanie Phillips?
Crook says he has been with the consensus (i.e. a warmer), how does that make him a "doubter"?
 
Last edited:
It seems to happen every time someone wants to convince a lot of people in a very short period of time that their point of view is the correct one -- data is falisfied, misrepresented or misinterpreted. This happened with Christians, Moslems, Twoofers, Birthers, Phillip-Morris, the people at Enron and now Warmers.

Who's next?
 
I am 75% convinced that climate change is real, and it is man-made. though i also have no doubt that politics and belief has become too intertwined with this whole thing.
 
This from a physicist, and AGW agnostic

"..just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce

makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. That is not science, that is religion with math equations."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
 
"Climategate" has been a hot topic on the Canadian Nuclear Society mailing list. Opinion amongst the CNS has been trending anti-AGW.

Which is ironic that as pro-nukers, AGW becomes a huge selling point for us. In addition to all its other advantages, nuclear power is carbon free.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I don't think too many of us are saying there is no global warming. More that the A in AGW is in question.
Your post is redundant - sorry.
Click to expand...

Except that the furor I've been seeing on the internet is over whether the data were fudged to make it look like temperatures were increasing "in general", not whether it's caused by humans. Most posts that I've seen are from people claiming that there's no warming at all.

Steve S.
 
steve s said:
Except that the furor I've been seeing on the internet is over whether the data were fudged to make it look like temperatures were increasing "in general", not whether it's caused by humans. Most posts that I've seen are from people claiming that there's no warming at all.

Steve S.
Click to expand...
Really? In this thread?

Of course not. And I don't recall too many at all claiming this in other related threads. I do see many posts, though, questioning the veracity of some of the research, and the CRU in particular and suggesting that some of the dire predictions may perhaps be exaggerated.

Of course, that's enough to be called denidiots and other such ad hom insults.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
This from a physicist, and AGW agnostic

"..just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce

makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. That is not science, that is religion with math equations."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
Click to expand...

Can't you read? We already went over this in the other thread. The code is not used anywhere. It has produced nothing. He acts like he's a great programmer, then misses out on that crucial point.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

It's the same piece of code just about every other programmer has been jumping up and down on without stating the bleeding obvious.

Raymond has made no attempt to find out if the graph was actually used anywhere. The file name was osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro, so we should look for a paper with authors, Briffa and Osborn published in 1998 and sure enough there's Briffa, Schweingruber, Jones, Osborn, Harris, Shiyatov, Vaganov and Grudd "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998:
In §4, we referred to a notable correspondence between 'hemispheric' MXD series (averaged over all sites) and an equivalent 'hemispheric' instrumental temperature series. Despite their having 50% common variance measured over the last century, it is apparent that in recent decades the MXD series shows a decline, whereas we know that summer temperatures over the same area increased. Closer examination reveals that while year-to-year (i.e. mutually ten-year high-pass filtered) correlations are consistently high between tree-growth and temperature (ca. 0.7 for 1881-1981), the correlations based on decadally smoothed data fall from 0.89, when calculated over the period 1881-1960, to 0.64 when the comparison period is extended to 1881-1981. This is illustrated in figure 6, which shows that decadal trends in both large-scale- average TRW and MXD increasingly diverge from the course of decadal temperature variation after about 1950 or 1960.
​
And figure 6 is basically the graph plotted by the code above and it does not include the "corrected MXD" data:
Click to expand...
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Found this

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php

Clive Crook on climategate, a few extracted comments as follows:

"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering."

...plain statistical incompetence.."

"And these guys call the other side "deniers"."

"The scientists have let them down, and made the anti-science crowd look wise. That is outrageous."

"... (if) this is how science is done in the real world. If I were a scientist, I would resent that."

'Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot.'


It seems to me that support is swaying. Climategate remains a hot topic on the internet, across politics, economics and public opinion.
Yet the warmers remain in denial over the seriousness of the subject.

I think Crook has done a good job in summarising the thoughts of many.
Click to expand...


I have already told you, Crook is not a 'warmer'. as you call us.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I don't think too many of us are saying there is no global warming. More that the A in AGW is in question.
Your post is redundant - sorry.
Click to expand...
Quite a few people think that the "A" is redundant. Still others think that the binary of "is" / "is not" (GW) is also redundant.

Clive Crook was deputy editor of The Economist for some years. Therefore AGW deniers would probably regard him as a warmer, like they do the publication itself. But then, AGW deniers are not AGW sceptics. Crook was always a sceptic.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that support is swaying.
Click to expand...
It's always seemed to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, vaccination hysterics and other strange animals that support for the other side is swaying. What else is new?

/me goes off to create thread "The sun rose this morning".
 
steve s said:
Except that the furor I've been seeing on the internet is over whether the data were fudged to make it look like temperatures were increasing "in general", not whether it's caused by humans. Most posts that I've seen are from people claiming that there's no warming at all.

Steve S.
Click to expand...

Not here (in general), and not from me.

lionking said:
Really? In this thread?

Of course not. And I don't recall too many at all claiming this in other related threads. I do see many posts, though, questioning the veracity of some of the research, and the CRU in particular and suggesting that some of the dire predictions may perhaps be exaggerated.

Of course, that's enough to be called denidiots and other such ad hom insults.
Click to expand...

Quite.

a_unique_person said:
I have already told you, Crook is not a 'warmer'. as you call us.
Click to expand...

Says you. He tells it differently.

Francesca R said:
Quite a few people think that the "A" is redundant. Still others think that the binary of "is" / "is not" (GW) is also redundant.

Clive Crook was deputy editor of The Economist for some years. Therefore AGW deniers would probably regard him as a warmer, like they do the publication itself. But then, AGW deniers are not AGW sceptics. Crook was always a sceptic.
Click to expand...

See above. He says otherwise.

I am glad for at least one thing, that you can see the difference between an AGW sceptic and a GW denier. Most of the warmers here can't.

For that, you have my respect (even though I think you are calling me a denier).

Thanks

Safe-Keeper said:
It's always seemed to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, vaccination hysterics and other strange animals that support for the other side is swaying. What else is new?
Click to expand...

Sigh:(

The facts are that the world is abuzz with this stuff. There is undeniable evidence that public opinion is swaying and this scandal (fwoaw) is impacting adversely.
There are many warmers in their own form of denial about that.
Public bodies are moving to review data, scientists are distancing themselves from East Anglia, political opinion is moving and heads are being called for.

None of this changes the science, true. But it is going to take some time (three years has been mentioned by the Met) to review the data to confirm the data is correct.

Only time will tell what that will show.
To think anyone can know the results now should apply for the $1m
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
It's always seemed to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, vaccination hysterics and other strange animals that support for the other side is swaying. What else is new?

* Safe-Keeper;5378798 goes off to create thread "The sun rose this morning".
Click to expand...

These conspiracy theories are all tied together. Example; http://whatreallyhappened.com/

They all come from the same kind of mental illness too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom