Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

whereaminow (73.77)

The Inconvenient Leak

Recs

27

November 28, 2009 – Comments (80)

Maybe we can stop Goldman Sachs' carbon trading scheme before it's too late. 

The ClimateGate scandal continues to spiral out of control.  BBC climate reporter Paul Hudson has confirmed that he received the hacked CRU emails six weeks ago after publishing a story titled Whatever Happened to Global Warming.  In the article, Hudson asked why global temperatures have not been rising for the last 11 years, as IPCC models predicted.

Searchable Email Database 
(For fun, search the database for "Andrew Revkin" or "Andy Revkin" or "Andy."  He runs a blog called dotearth at the NYT.  It appears that Andy was Michael Mann's useful idiot, although sometimes not as "predictable" as the rest of the "prestige press."

It's also becoming more likely that these emails were stolen by someone working inside CRU and not the work of "right wing deniers." Oh, this is JUICY!

Paul Hudson's revelation is especially delightful for me!  I linked to the original BBC story here in comment #18.  The response :

What a load of bunk. The latest decade includes all of the warmest years in a century and a half. If you know a bit about statistics you'll realize that the odds of having such continuity of warm years nearly rules out random chance. " - lucas1985

Ah, but now we discover that the real bunk are all the pretty graphs and charts that lucas1985 and the other anthropogenic global warming fraud denialists have put forth.

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." - Kenneth Trenberth

We know that:

1. Temperature data has been manipulated, destroyed, and deleted.

Michael Mann's original Hockey Stick graph contained mistakes which he admits in the private emails.  (In a recent paper, he recreated the same mistake, which passed peer review - see point #3 - but was caught by McIntyre in about 15 minutes. See more at Climate Audit.)

That the data collected at CRU was did not conform to the hopes of CRU scientists. Phil Jones is now famous for the words "hide the decline."

2. That CRU scientists, particularly Jones and Mann refused to release their research data to repeated Freedom of Information requests, in spite of the fact that Jones and Mann's crew was utitlizing taxpayer funds(!!!!) to perform their research. 

3. Phil Jones and others rigged the peer review process over the years, removing skeptics and dissenters. Peer review for AGW  reserach is a rubber stamped formality, nothing more.

For more fun do the following Google News Searches:

"CRU emails source:cnn"
"CRU emails source:msnbc"

It's surprisingly quiet in the Socialist News Rooms. You can't ignore it away, my little Bebel-ites. What is so important at Copenhagen that they are trying to bury this story? Hmmmm.....

To be continued. We haven't even scratched the surface.........

David in Qatar

80 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 28, 2009 at 5:38 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said he was convinced the emails were genuine, adding: 'I'm dismayed and deeply shaken.  There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.  The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should resign."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#2) On November 28, 2009 at 5:41 AM, sleepreading (< 20) wrote:

I believed in Global warming until I moved to Nebraska.

Report this comment
#3) On November 28, 2009 at 7:56 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

I am dismayed that my beloved Motley Fool has become the platform for such arrant nonsense. Let's leave this sort of junk to the editorial page of the WSJ shall we?

As George Monbiot rightly said, the leaks damage the credibility of a couple scientists--but not in the least the underlying science of climate change. 

What we are seeing here is the product of the illegal theft of data on the eve of an important international conference followed by a predictably distorted propaganda by the right-wing likes of the WSJ and Fox News and now (apparently here by "David in Quatar." David"s deliberate misrepresentation of Monbiot's actual views is typical right-wing stuff.

I have spent a good deal of time over the years studying this issue and can confidently assert a) that climate change is a sound theory; b) there is much greater consensus that it is real in the scientific community than there was five years ago; and c) we are beginning to see its destructive effects on the ground.

The deniers among us--when they are not being intellectually dishonest--fail utterly to to understand the nature of the climate change theory or the way scientists work.

But my larger point is this: The Motley Fool is not the place for propaganda.  

 

Report this comment
#4) On November 28, 2009 at 8:07 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

PabloinMich,

But my larger point is this: The Motley Fool is not the place for propaganda.

You're right! Science Journals are much better places to publish propoganda cause from what I can tell AGW scientists certainly aren't practicing science.....

But my larger point is this: The Motley Fool can take down whatever posts they want and since they haven't taken down David's posts we can assume that they think those posts are somehow relevant.....

But my EVEN larger point is this: You were neither invited nor solicited to this blog, so go troll somewhere else if you have nothing of value to add to the disucussion.

Dare

Report this comment
#5) On November 28, 2009 at 8:18 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

I am not the least impressed with your right-wing thuggery. Since TMF has seen fit to allow this to be posted, and since I am a TMF member, I will comment just as much as I please. So if you are going to post nonsense I am going to reply--simple as that.

The original post had no intellectual value whatever; it was merely an attempt to use TMF as a platform for propaganda campaign being carried out more skillfully eslewhere. If you want to debate the issue on its merits by all means lets do so. Thus far none of you deniers seem up to such a challenge.

 

Report this comment
#6) On November 28, 2009 at 8:21 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

DaretothREdux,

Don't sweat it bro.  Clearly Pablo hasn't read the emails, nor will he. He's probably scared of what he might find. 

And stay tuned. Plenty more to come :)  This is easily my favorite story of the year.

Whoever leaked these emails should get the Nobel Peace Prize!

PabloinMich,

I don't write posts for you, nor do I take orders from you.  This is a user-controlled content site, so if you wish to bring up different topics, click on MyCaps and then "Create New Post." 

Act. Don't react.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On November 28, 2009 at 8:26 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

You are speaking gibberish again. Against such ignorance as yours the gods contend in vain. Do you really have nothing intelligent to say?

In any event, if you are going to persist with your disinformation campaign, I am going to comment. Get used to it.

Report this comment
#8) On November 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

PabloinMich,

Please provide me with a model that can accurately predict the price of cotton in Iowa one year from today. Then provide me with a model that can predic the weather in Spain the next day.

Show me either one and then we can talk.

You have no such model for either, yet you want me to believe that you can predict the effects of human action on the global environment for the next how many decades?

Dare

Report this comment
#9) On November 28, 2009 at 8:30 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

PabloinMich,

I have absolutely nothing intelligent to say, but that is neither here nor there. 

I am just asking you to read the emails.  The database is linked above. It's just a click away.  And pardon me for asking, but what part of this blog contained "disinformation?" 

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#10) On November 28, 2009 at 8:32 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

Oh do stop being stupid. Your analogies are ridiculous. Take your sophistry elsewhere. I have to presume some measure of good faith and intellect here. Sadly I find none.

 

Report this comment
#11) On November 28, 2009 at 8:35 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

DaretothREdux,

I love the AGW believers. These posts really bring out America's public school victims in full force, don't they?

(Just for fun, do a google search for CRU source code. That's the next shoe to drop =D)

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#12) On November 28, 2009 at 8:39 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

PabloinMich,

AGW is by definition the joining of praxeology and climate models or an I confused about the "Anthropogenic" part? Since you seem to have found an accurate model for predicting human action, I and many others would love to see it as it will be a very useful investment tool.

If you have no such model, then why would I be willing to sacrifice my freedoms to a global government that intends to control every aspect of my life from how much CO2 I can produce to which lightbulbs and windows I can buy?

Dare

Report this comment
#13) On November 28, 2009 at 8:48 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

Your deliberate misrepresentation of George Monbiot's views is typical of you disinformation efforts. You quote one comment accurately enough, but ignore the substance of what he is saying which is just the opposite.

Yes, of course I have read the emails though I amnot sure you have. Most of them are completely unremarkable to anyone familiar with how scientists work or the underlying science of climate change. A few are damaging and troubling--but mainly to the reputation of a couple scientists and not to the whole field of study.

I take solace in the fact that your disinformation efforts are unlikely to work. Although it is easy to misrepresent such things to a lay community, the basic science remains what it was. Enlightened worldeaders understand this. While there is (and always was) considerable uncertainty in the business of predictive models, the consensus regarding the urgency of the issue remains strong and the real effects of warming are already being observed on the ground. As Monbiot rightly says, the plausibility of global climate change is confirmed by hundreds of threads of inquiry. At worst the leaked emails are only grounds for skepticism about a couple of them.   

 

Report this comment
#14) On November 28, 2009 at 8:48 AM, dudemonkey (57.40) wrote:

I have to presume some measure of good faith and intellect here. Sadly I find none.

You're never going to find reason and rationality in this debate.  It's like the debate about evolution.  You just can't talk to some of the people involved because they don't understand climate change, they refuse to learn about it, and they're not intellectually honest enough with themselves to admit that they really have no idea what they're talking about.

For a lot of people, this is an entirely emotional debate.  I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even care about it if it if there weren't OTHER, louder uninformed people on TV telling them what to think.  We've built a culture of hating science.

Report this comment
#15) On November 28, 2009 at 8:53 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

dudemonkey,

I have learned quite a lot more about climate change by engaging in the debate than I ever did sitting on the sidelines.  I'm very happy that I started investigating this on my own.

I've never seen you add much to the discussion.  Why is that? 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#16) On November 28, 2009 at 8:56 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

Thanks Dude. I could agree more. When someone like "Dare" starts ranting about global government he might as well declare himself a diabolist--there is no point even responding.

David in Qatar is a much cleverer propagandist. The scientific analyst in me is inclined to just let it be. The scientific debate will be rich and lively and not much influenced either way by what we say here. But when I see deliberate attempts to distort what these emails mean it is hard not to respond.  

 

Report this comment
#17) On November 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

PabloinMich,

Your deliberate misrepresentation of George Monbiot's views is typical of you disinformation efforts. You quote one comment accurately enough, but ignore the substance of what he is saying which is just the opposite.

What was he trying to say?  By "Phil Jones should resign" did he mean the opposite?

Those things around the sentences are called quotation marks.  When someone says something, a reporter quotes him.  That's how it works.  

Are you trying to say that Monbiot loves the environment and wants us to treat the planet better?  I'm sure he does.  That's a good thing.  I think he's also trying to say that Phil Jones is a disgrace. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#18) On November 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

dudemonkey,

I subscribe to the Theory of Evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. The scientist who subscribe to the Theory also don't wish to make public policy based on their findings. They aren't calling for something to be done right now before we all mutate into X-Men! If they were, I would probably ignore them as well....

Dare

Report this comment
#19) On November 28, 2009 at 8:58 AM, fmahnke (96.05) wrote:

PabloinMich

I am not a climate expert, just an investor and citizen who is trying to form an educated opinion on this issue,  There does seem to be conflicting data and I an hoping you ( as someone who has spent years studying this topic ) can help me with the issue that bothers me the most.

"2. That CRU scientists, particularly Jones and Mann refused to release their research data to repeated Freedom of Information requests, in spite of the fact that Jones and Mann's crew was utitlizing taxpayer funds(!!!!) to perform their research"

Why would this be ? assuming it it true and I have read it before

I disagree with your comment about whether this post is appropriate for this site,  No matter what you beleive about this issue, the Cap and trade legislation proposed by the House has significant economic  ( and investment) implications.

My only opinion on this many of the advocates of this theory seem very determined to supress alternative theories/ evidence is troubling when these folks seem to have so much at stake in terms of funding/reputation.  I think many people are  troubled by this who are not right wing thugs.

Shouldn't the scientists be happy for the opportunity to release all info  to dissprove the skeptics ?

 

Report this comment
#20) On November 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

PabloinMich,

I would be more than happy to subscribe to the Theory of Global Warming if it were kept entirely seperate from politics. Public policy shouldn't be based on unsettle science. This isn't like the Law of Gravity. You can't make a law outlawing gravity, well you could, it just wouldn't work (CA probably still try)....mixing Science and Politics is like mixing science and religion, both sides have an agenda, and always the goal is to gain more power.

Dare

Report this comment
#21) On November 28, 2009 at 9:02 AM, dudemonkey (57.40) wrote:

I've never seen you add much to the discussion.  Why is that?

Because I'm not a climatologist and I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know the answer.  I'm commenting on the DEBATE, not the topic, and the side that denies AGW looks like a spit-shined version of the anti-evolutionists that we saw screaming from the rooftops a few years ago. That's what I'm saying.

I, too, have read a lot about this and I have my own opinion. And my opinion is that this is an investing website, and inflammatory, irrational threads like this make me question the value of CAPS. 

Report this comment
#22) On November 28, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Sleddawg63 (27.00) wrote:

I think this discussion does belong on the Motley Fool boards.  Won't the T.Boone Pickens IPO be a hot topic when it hits?

Report this comment
#23) On November 28, 2009 at 9:04 AM, dudemonkey (57.40) wrote:

mixing Science and Politics is like mixing science and religion, both sides have an agenda, and always the goal is to gain more power.

Mixing science and politics is the opposite of mixing science and religion. 

Report this comment
#24) On November 28, 2009 at 9:11 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

dudemonkey,

Mixing science and politics is the opposite of mixing science and religion.

(Insert witty rebuttle as to why this is total nonsense here).

Sorry. I'm just a little off my game this morning. Wait till the caffeine pills kick in...

Dare

Report this comment
#25) On November 28, 2009 at 9:24 AM, dudemonkey (57.40) wrote:

(Insert witty rebuttle as to why this is total nonsense here).

Science is based on testable, repeatable peer-reviewed hypotheses, and the more science is done on a topic, the closer we, as a species, get to understanding it.  It's the triumph of logic and reason.

Religion is based on faith in things, faith that can never be questioned because there is no ability to frame the discussion in a testable way.  Faith, while an extremely important and powerful emotion, is just that, an emotion. 

Science is the opposite of religion.  It's based on different things, it has different methodologies, and it has thousands of years of forward progress.  So, I would say that it's critical to include rational science in politics just as it's critical to exclude  irrational religion.

Report this comment
#26) On November 28, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Sleddawg63 (27.00) wrote:

Fact is there is too much politics in any discussion.  "Politics" is nothing more than a phrase that describes a personal vestment in an issue.  It can do nothing but move people away from logic and fact.  You can add "religion" to that list too.  

I'd think the only time to include politics and religion into a discussion is when you are talking about politics and religion.

There is a reason why it has always been wrong to talk about those two topics in polite company...but now they are being infused into everything. 

 

Report this comment
#27) On November 28, 2009 at 9:39 AM, dudemonkey (57.40) wrote:

Fact is there is too much politics in any discussion.  "Politics" is nothing more than a phrase that describes a personal vestment in an issue.  It can do nothing but move people away from logic and fact.

I think this is the smartest thing I've seen on CAPS.  We need less politics in our government.

Report this comment
#28) On November 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

I am pleased to see things are getting a tad more rational here. On reflection, I think it is fine to discuss this topic here as it relates to investing. But both today and yesterday people started using this forum to advance propaganda interests that were being carried out elsewhere by the likes of Fox News. I find that objectionable.

DARE, you and I can agree that there is a considerable uncertainty to the science. But i disagree that what is known is insufficient for action. It may surprise you to learn that I am something of a middle of the roader here. Some modest steps of the sort Obama is proposing make sense to me. Part of the problem is that while it is plausible to expect warming, and while warming's effects have been observed, the future is very uncertain, with relatively benign and catastrophic scenarios being possible. Under the circumstances I think prudence requires some action now and flexibility so that we can move more quickly in the future if events require it. I think Tom Friedman wrote to just this point a few weeks ago. 

Purely as an investor and an optimist,I think it is exciting to envision and encourage ways to enter a new energy age that is not nearly as reliant on carbon. I am agnostic right now as to whether cap and trade or a carbon tax would be the better policy. 

fmahnke, I wish I could give you a snappy answer to your question about Mann and Jones and whether their data would fall under FOIA. I will look into. My initial impression is that this is another right-wing red herring. Jones is a British scientist. I don't know if they even have a Freedom of Information Act there or its equivalent. Mann is now at Penn State and has gotten public research money. My problem is that I don't know but rather doubt he would be required to send his raw research data to anyone who filed a FOIA request. I sincerely hope he would not be the case. No self respecting scientist should be forced to give his data to Glenn Beck. On the other hand, if there are serious allegations of fraud (which there have not been thus far in the scientific community) he would have to defend himself.

For what it is worth, it is a bit unfair to lump Jones and Mann together. Jones seems to have developed a bunker mentality. Mann, however, has been willing to go through his emails point by point and explain what he meant. I found his answers to be somewhat reassuring but urge folks to look at them.  

 

 

Report this comment
#29) On November 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

dudemonkey,

If you wish to add to the value of CAPS, there is a link on your MyCaps page that says "Create New Post."  That would add to the value of CAPS, if you believed that you had something worthwhile to share.

If you know so little of climatology, why don't you read the emails and find out a little more?  The climate scientists wrote them.

Dare,

I am really enjoying this.  I post a link to emails by climate scientists and it is considered inflammatory by the LEFT!  Haha!  Since it is the content of the emails themselves that is inflammatory, I find that very ironic!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#30) On November 28, 2009 at 9:43 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Pablo,

Go the email link above and search for Freedom of Information or FOI.

And down the rabbit hole you go.......

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#31) On November 28, 2009 at 9:46 AM, starbucks4ever (99.53) wrote:

The climate issue did become sort of religion for the public. None of us has even a rudimentary knowledge of Climatology, yet everybody (except me) has a rock-solid opinion on the issue. A side note: there is a fine line between destruction of data and manipulation. A scientist can destroy data and even remove some skeptics and dissenters. In and of itself, that doesn't mean manipulation. We need an honest professional Climatologist to tell if these allegations of fraud are really worth anything. 

Report this comment
#32) On November 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM, dudemonkey (57.40) wrote:

If you wish to add to the value of CAPS, there is a link on your MyCaps page that says "Create New Post."  That would add to the value of CAPS, if you believed that you had something worthwhile to share.

I've posted things that I feel are worthwhile.  Thank you for this advice.

Now my advice to you is that not everything that goes through your mind will add to the value of CAPS if you post it here.

Report this comment
#33) On November 28, 2009 at 9:52 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

dudemonkey,

If we assume that one could say something a priori true about the way events are related, then this would belie its very own thesis that empirical knowledge must invariably be hypothetical knowledge. ---Hans-Hermann Hoppe

So, I would say that it's critical to include rational science in politics just as it's critical to exclude irrational religion.

This is in fact the theory in which modern day technocrats put all their faith. It's also the theory that the Nazi Party subscribed to.

Note: I'm not calling you a Nazi.

If we exclude "emotion" as you claim, then we have no reason not to exterminate the weak (mentally and physically) or at least very least make them our slaves.

Science is the opposite of religion.  It's based on different things, it has different methodologies, and it has thousands of years of forward progress.

Science is no better an explanation of the world than religion. Religion also has different "methodologies, and it has thousands of years of forward progress."

The thing that religion or any philosophy has that science still seems to lack is a reason for emotion (outside of a chemical explanation). Without emotion our decisions become cold and machine like. There is no reason not to let the people starve in the street or to nuke a neighboring people for their land.

The theory of Utility looks good until viewed in this light. I personally, refuse to subscribe to any theory which can be refuted with a short story.

Dare

Report this comment
#34) On November 28, 2009 at 9:58 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

dude! monkey....

You're my boy. But here's the thing, as I said before, I don't post for you or anyone else on CAPS. I am a selfish blogger.  I don't really care if my posts add value. VALUE IS ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE.

I just really wanted to share that email database link again, point out that a BBC reporter sat on it for 6 weeks, note that a leading environmentalist called for Phil Jones' resignation, and rile up a few commenters.

Mission Accomplished.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#35) On November 28, 2009 at 10:03 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

David,

I finished with the RIGHT-LEFT paradigm years ago. I have a number of views that would make many liberals look like Rush L-Ball conservatives.

Dare

Report this comment
#36) On November 28, 2009 at 10:08 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

Dave in Qatar,

 

I hope by this point it is apparent to everyone sincerely interested in this subject  that you are a boring propagandistic fraud. You bring to mind the old biblical injunction about ignoring those who "darkeneth counsel by words without understanding."

Your total misrepresentation of Monbiot's views is typical. Yes, he said Jones should resign. But his larger point was that the science of global warming remained intact despite Jones's alleged malfeasance. You are aware of this, of course, but choose to have people believe that in condemning Jones Monbiot is condeming the science of cliamte change. That is not true and you know it.

Your red herring about the Freedom of Information Act is a similar trick. I surely hope we don't reach the day when a respected scientist is required to release his raw data to every interest group and media outlet that asks for it. On the other hand if there are serious allegations of fraud, then by all means this should be looked into by a jury of scientific peers. There is ample precedent for doing this.

I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that you are nothing but a clever propagandist. You know how to manipulate media but you know nothing about FOIA and even less about the science of global climate change.

For the rest of you folks, I urge you not to take either what Dave or I say at face value. Read stuff by the WSJ or Fox news. Read the Natural Resources Defense Council or Environmental Defense. Read the right wing blogs dave quotes and also read Tom Friedman. I am convinced that the more you read the more you will be convinced that there is a highly plausible cause for concern.     

 

Report this comment
#37) On November 28, 2009 at 10:08 AM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

David,

I just really wish I could steal the word "Liberal" and "Liberalism" back from those jack monkey butts (radio edit) because I'm actually the one who is for CHANGE!

Dare

Report this comment
#38) On November 28, 2009 at 10:09 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

DaretothREdux,

You mean your principled opposition to war and the military industrial complex?  Your total opposition to corporate welfare?   Your opposition to monopoly/oligopoly like the energy industry, banking cartel, oil cartel, and medical insurance companies?

:)

Ron Paul says the Right has lost its way. I think the Left has too.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#39) On November 28, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Sleddawg63 (27.00) wrote:

Nobody believes anybody anymore.  No matter how much due process is done on scientific data, by peers or by media...no one on the other side of the argument will accept the results.

The age of absolute is dead. 

Report this comment
#40) On November 28, 2009 at 10:22 AM, truthisntstupid (95.97) wrote:

Call it silly to allow a science fiction novel to influence my thinking.  Go ahead.  Unless you're open-minded enough to read it yourself, I don't care.  Ever since I read it I think global warming is a crock.  Michael Crichton did reams of research to find the REAL suppressed and ignored statistics that form part of the backstory of his book.  I challenge you to read "State Of Fear"  and still believe as strongly as you do in this global scam.

Report this comment
#41) On November 28, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Sleddawg63 (27.00) wrote:

Read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and decide for yourself.  So much has been done to societies to get them on board with an agenda that it's downright criminal.

Report this comment
#42) On November 28, 2009 at 10:29 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

Just for fun here is a link to a recent column by Thomas Friedman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=1

Friedman has taken the time (and has the ability) to understand technical issues. 

Then asked yourself who you would be more inclined to trust: Tom Friedman or Dave in Qatar. 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#43) On November 28, 2009 at 10:33 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

Sure and then read the comments of the scientists who, to their everlasting regret, "helped" Crichton. To a person they said he didn't listen to a word they said as they patiently explained what was wrong with the statistics he quoted.

Crichton also warned us about the menace of feminism and Japan. His credibility here is less than zero. But since he is no longer around to defend himself, I will desist.   

Report this comment
#44) On November 28, 2009 at 10:41 AM, truthisntstupid (95.97) wrote:

Michael Crichton's  "State Of Fear"  has a bibliography referencing dozens if not a hundred or more studies and statistics that none of the global warming adherents want to talk about....I'm not going to go and dig the book out.  Anyone truly interested in this should go get a copy and read it themselves, no matter which side of the issue you're on.

Report this comment
#45) On November 28, 2009 at 10:44 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

This post is going to look so funny on Monday.  I'm saving the best for the beginning of next week. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#46) On November 28, 2009 at 10:56 AM, PabloinMich (< 20) wrote:

And I will be here waiting. You are easy enough to refute. In fact you are getting comical.

I am just shaking in my boots.

Report this comment
#47) On November 28, 2009 at 11:07 AM, truthisntstupid (95.97) wrote:

You two have fun.  I don't care enough about this to spend any time on it.  That said, my opinion is its bullshit.  And I don't care enough to stick around and argue about it.

Report this comment
#48) On November 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

It is absolutely silly to deny global warming.  It has been happening for 14,000+ years.  A large chunk of the northern hemisphere was under a mile high sheet of ice.  What caused it to commence isn't known with certainty (orbital shift, solar flares, etc.). What is certain is that mankind did not, let me repeat, did not cause it (our ancestors were too busy shivering in caves).

What is certain is that global temperatures only have two directions to go, warmer or colder.  So the preference is yours, do you want another ice age or do you want tropical weather in northern Canada?

 

Report this comment
#49) On November 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@awallejr,
"It is absolutely silly to deny global warming.  It has been happening for 14,000+ years.  A large chunk of the northern hemisphere was under a mile high sheet of ice."
Do you understand that this discussion isn't about the start of the Holocene interglacial?

"What caused it to commence isn't known with certainty (orbital shift, solar flares, etc.)."
The cause of the glacial-interglacial cycle is known.


"What is certain is that mankind did not, let me repeat, did not cause it (our ancestors were too busy shivering in caves)."
The climate system is a giant machinery which transports heat and moisture around the globe. It interacts with the biogeochemical cycles, the hydrological cycles, tectonic activity, volcanic activity and changes in the energy budget. What is certain is that the climate system responds to forcings, be them natural or anthropogenic in origin.
"So the preference is yours, do you want another ice age or do you want tropical weather in northern Canada?"
So, hell to Africa, the mid-East, the American Southwest, the Amazonian rainforest, low-lying areas, Australia because you want balmy summers in northern Canada?

Report this comment
#50) On November 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

Oops, here's the missing image

 

Report this comment
#51) On November 28, 2009 at 2:26 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Wait until you see how they come up with that data :)

Coming soon to a blog near you........

Just a taste, just a little taste. So much more to come on Monday.

These are just the emails. The emails aren't even the big deal here, as you will soon see. Again, the searchable database of emails can be found on each of my last two posts. I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you think that one email is all they've got, you are doing some serious wishful thinking.

Here are some summaries of the CRUgate files.  The refs are the email number.

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).

Analysis of impact here. Wow!Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)

Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)

Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)

Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)

Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)

Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)

Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)

Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)

Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)

Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)

Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)

Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460)

[Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)

Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)

Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Phil Jones having problems with explaining issues over the Lamb image of global temps in the early IPCC reports. Says it shouldn't be discussed openly at Real Climate. Says better left buried.(1168356704)

Phil Jones emails Steve [Schneider], editor of Climatic Change [plus others, editorial board of the journal?], telling him he shouldn't accede to McIntyre's request for Mann's computer code. In later email to Mann ("For your eyes only, delete after reading") Jones says he told Jones separately [presumably meaning without saying to the rest of the board] that he should seek advice elsewhere and also consult the publisher and take legal advice.(1074277559)

Briffa says he tried hard to balance the needs of the IPCC and science, which were not always the same.(1177890796)

An anonymous source says that robustness problems with the Hockey Stick are known to anyone who understands his methodology. The source says that there will be a lot of noise over McIntyre's 2003 paper and that knowing Mann'svery thin skin he will react strongly, unless he has learned from the past.(1067194064)

Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) says that IPCC is not an assessment of published science but about production of results. Says there are very few rules and anything goes. Thinks this will undermine IPCC credibility. Says everyone seems to think it's OK to do this.(0968705882)

IPCC review editor John Mitchell says that the issue of why proxy data for recent decades is not shown (he says it's because they don't show warming) needs to be explained. [Note to readers, this was not done Let's say that the explanation was nuanced - it said that the divergence problem, as this issue is known, was restricted to a few areas]. Also says that Mann's short-centred PC analysis is wrong and that Mann's results are not statistically significant.(1150923423)

 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#52) On November 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@truthisntstupid,
"Michael Crichton's  "State Of Fear"  has a bibliography referencing dozens if not a hundred or more studies and statistics that none of the global warming adherents want to talk about"
Oh noes, it has footnotes therefore it must be factually correct [1, 2].
The scientific claims of "State of Fear" are a load of crap [3, 4, 5]

Report this comment
#53) On November 28, 2009 at 3:06 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@DaretothREdux,
"Science is no better an explanation of the world than religion. Religion also has different "methodologies, and it has thousands of years of forward progress."
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The stupid, it hurts.

Report this comment
#54) On November 28, 2009 at 3:06 PM, GADawg (< 20) wrote:

PabloinMich,

The UK does, indeed, have a FOI law. I assume the data in question was subject to that law, otherwise Jones would have no need to request his peers delete said data. Deleting data subject to a FOI request after the request has been made is a crime in the UK.

whereaminow,

Thanks for posting these emails. The more light we can shine on the global ManBearPig phenomenon, the better. Especially given the costly Cap and Tax legislation being pushed in Congress.

Report this comment
#55) On November 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

lucas1985,

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The stupid, it hurts.

Wow! What an argument. Were you up all night thinking of that one? I hope it didn't hurt your pea-sized brain too much.

You want to debate the merits of science v. philosophy?

Throw down, buddy! I'm ready when you are.

Dare

Report this comment
#56) On November 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@DaretothREdux,
"You want to debate the merits of science v. philosophy?"
Now you rebrand religion as philosophy. Oh dear, oh dear.
Please explain how religion explains the physical world better than methodological naturalism.

Report this comment
#57) On November 28, 2009 at 3:40 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@DaretothREdux,
"I subscribe to the Theory of Evolution. The evidence is overwhelming. The scientist who subscribe to the Theory also don't wish to make public policy based on their findings."
Oh dear, the fact of evolution does suggest public policy. To name a few: education policy and health policy

Report this comment
#58) On November 28, 2009 at 3:44 PM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

lucas1985,

First of all, religions are philosphies. Secondly, I never claimed to be religious. I just refuse to discount the merits of any system of beliefs upon which people base their actions.

Methodological naturalism simply seeks to find the relationship between cause and effect (discounting the possibilty of supernatural). This doesn't explain the world any more than 2+2=4. It is simply another instance of people's ability to recognize patterns (as is all math and science).

That takes care of your first point. Now it's my turn.

How does science explain the universal archetype?

Dare

 

Report this comment
#59) On November 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

lucas1985,

To my knowledge there has been no large legislative push to ban over use of anti-biotics....

As to "education policy" that's a bit of contradiction in terms, but if I still find it quite comforting that home schooling and private schools have yet to be made illegal by the state.

Dare

Report this comment
#60) On November 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said he was convinced the emails were genuine, adding: 'I'm dismayed and deeply shaken.  There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.  The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should resign.""
Mombiot also said
"But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed."
How is that for you, spin master?

Report this comment
#61) On November 28, 2009 at 4:01 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@DaretothREdux,
"To my knowledge there has been no large legislative push to ban over use of anti-biotics...."
Administration Seeks to Restrict Antibiotics in Livestock
"The Obama administration announced Monday that it would seek to ban many routine uses of antibiotics in farm animals in hopes of reducing the spread of dangerous bacteria in humans.
In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease. And Dr. Sharfstein said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian.
Both practices lead to the development of bacteria that are immune to many treatments, he said."
"The legislation is supported by the American Medical Association, among other groups, but opposed by farm organizations like the National Pork Producers Council. The farm lobby’s opposition makes its passage unlikely, but advocates are hoping to include the measure in the legislation to revamp the health care system.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that as much as 70 percent of antibiotics used in the United States is given to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle to encourage their growth or to prevent illnesses."
More information.

Report this comment
#62) On November 28, 2009 at 4:06 PM, LiveOakGrey (< 20) wrote:

Hello Whereaminow and Dare,

As a former believer in AGW, who became convinced the data didn't actually support that conclusion (and who is a reluctantly registered democrat, rather than a "Fox News watching right wing goon"), let me add a few points to consider.  One of the former founders of Green Peace, Patrick Moore, has publicly stated that the extreme left/ greens aren't basing their decisions on actual scientific evidence, but on 'bad science.' 

Moore, decided to leave Green Peace when their views were no longer perceived as looney left, but basically mainstream.  The adherents that remained at this point needed to identify themselves in 'opposition' to everyone in the larger society, for the emotional security and identity it gave them.  Basically, a holier-than-thou claim to moral superiority.  Moore stated that when he regularly heard members of Green Peace wanting to ban the chemical element chlorine, that he knew his group was becoming so irrational, that it was time to leave.  His amazement that their ignorance was so intense that even though they didn't understand that an element isn't man-made, but exists in nature (think table salt for example; NaCl), that wasn't going to get in the way of their emotional needs for self-identity through opposition and contrarianism.  

Moore, a pretty serious left-wing figure has also stated that the evidence surrounding AGW is manufactured 'bad science.'  That you have various academics and scientists competing for government funding for projects that will advance their careers, book publishing success, tenure and reputations - and if their field of interest isn't worthy of government derived cash subsidization, that all you had to do was add some mention of how global warming was involved and you got the funding.  An approximate example I recall him giving was something like 'the life cycle and reproductive success of midwest prairie dogs, as negatively affected by global warming.' And you would get your government grant, whereas without that global warming tag-on, you'd get shinola, and no tenure, or career enhancement, no status, no book contracts, etc.  

You have scientists being incentivized to less than intellectual honesty and promotion of good science, by: Financial Gain, Dogmatic Certitudes instead of the uncertainties about basic threatening issues we all have to deal with in life, Social Status Enhancement, the cognitive error of Social Proof (everyone else believes it must be so, so it must be so), the cognitive error of Consistency Bias with previously accepted ideologies (especially if they have made a commitment to them in their studies or in public).

Dudemonkey was making comments about science being based on repeatable data, etc.  Something else about whether something passes the definition of whether it's actually scientific or not is whether the hypothesis can be falsified (proven wrong), by some test, and whether it has actual predictive power that is later shown to be correct by data.  In the case of AGW the prediction was that we would find hotter zones in the upper atmosphere, and with weather balloons sent up all over the world, these heating zones are nowhere to be found.  The prediction is wrong, and the hypothesis has been falsified.  Unless the hypothesis is reworked to take these crucial facts into account, it's no longer a question of whether it might end up being scientifically accurate.  It's now in the realm of falsified hypotheses that don't rate any respect in the real world where we make our decisions on data and rational planning.

The idea that anyone is some kind of right-wing thug, because he doesn't accept left-wing ideological dogmatic thinking,  is offensive.  It is itself the tactic of intellectual dishonesty masquerading as a generous, but sad maturity of the soul that regretfully dismisses all those that won't validate it's needs for rigid conclusions that make the world safe from thought, investigation and a disconcerting lack of fixed self-servingly pious certitudes.  Bleah, who needs these people!

About the value of bringing attention to bad science, or bad political decisions on an investment website, all we have to do is determine if political and intellectual dishonesty by either or both parties in our government will cost investors lots of money if they ignore it.  This very much applies to carbon credits and fake claims of AGW. It is also a tip off of how much we can trust our government to be 'aligned with voter-shareholders' interests in any other areas of creating a sound economy and fairly run nation.

 Another investor consideration involved in assessing whether government is making rational decisions about good or bad science, is what different investment market sectors will be affected by an honest (not in this case), or dishonest government, seeking the appearance of being part of productive long-term solutions to scary threats in the world, by resorting to the politically expedient and time-tested method of:                                    

One- Identifying any real or imagined threat,                                      

Two- throwing lots of other people's money (tax payers) at it, with lots of opportunities for kickbacks to those same committee managing politicos,    

Three- distracting attention from the day to day frauds and/or incompetent misallocations of taxes and resources by government.  These misallocations typically being in favor of the other 'branches,' of our kleptocratic system of a government-big business-unions-bureaucracies complex.                    

Four- claiming victory over the problem and 'mission accomplished,' so please reward me and my party with reelection, thank you very much.

Another big issue for the AGW ideologues, is one of their secular saints (who I thought was a better person, than he's turning out to be), Al Gore- is that Nobel Prize or not, he's refusing to debate anyone on the multiple documented errors from his "An Inconvenient Truth" movie.  He's even admitted there were errors, but he's not retracting his claims for AGW.  This isn't intellectual or scientific honesty.  Qui Bono.  Follow the money, the popularity contest that is politics and the power it brings, and you can see Gore is another person incentivized to continue pushing a discredited position, that he's previously committed to.  Because consistency bias, fame, money and power are his for the taking if he just refuses to admit to himself and others, that the most recent facts don't support what initially looked like very clear causes and effects of man-made carbons creating climate changes, not warming creating carbon releases from the oceans, 800 years after the fact.  Too bad, cause it was a great movie.  

I guess it's too much to ask this Nobel Prize committee to rescind their prizes, in light of some of the terrorists and non-performing presidents they hand prizes out to.  They've got their own consistency biases where they've committed to issues on record... Hey, maybe we've found where all that 'hot air' missing from the upper atmosphere went.  I guess it's true after all, AGW is true, and it's a Swedo-Norwegian cover-up!

-Grey 

Report this comment
#63) On November 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

What is the 'normal' temperature of the planet?  Since ice ages are longer than the warm interglacial periods, we would have to pick ice age.  Think of what an idyllic place the world would be!

We could live in igloos- the building materials would be free and sustainable!  Our children could play with cute polar bear cubs.  We could ride our sleds to work. No ozone depleting CFC's from air conditioners or refrigeration.  The richest man in the world might be the CEO of the largest manufacturer of mittens and ear-muffs.  Fat people wouldn't be fat, they would just be well insulated.  You could go to the park and feed the penguins, cute little buggers.  Skateboarding would involve sharp objects allowing the course of Darwinian natural selection to again prevail.

Report this comment
#64) On November 28, 2009 at 4:14 PM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

lucas1985,

Administration Seeks to Restrict Antibiotics in Livestock

I am of course completely unshocked at the distance our government will go to gain control over the lives of the people. Please, please, let me know when I am no longer allowed to use anti-bacterial soap in my own bathroom.

Dare

Report this comment
#65) On November 28, 2009 at 4:25 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@DaretothREdux,
"First of all, religions are philosphies."
Merriam-Webster Online
"1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

"I just refuse to discount the merits of any system of beliefs upon which people base their actions."
I don't discount any system of beliefs. However, metaphysical beliefs have nothing to do with the physical world.

"Methodological naturalism simply seeks to find the relationship between cause and effect (discounting the possibilty of supernatural). This doesn't explain the world any more than 2+2=4. It is simply another instance of people's ability to recognize patterns (as is all math and science)."
How do we test metaphysical claims? Supernatural claims are not testable/falsifiable and so they're relegated to the metaphysical.

"How does science explain the universal archetype?"
I don't know. Maybe cognitive science has some answers.

Report this comment
#66) On November 28, 2009 at 4:39 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@DaretothREdux,
"I am of course completely unshocked at the distance our government will go to gain control over the lives of the people."
- First you applaud evolutionary scientists for not making policy recommendations. When they make policy suggestions you put your tinfoil hat and start babbling against the government. Funny logic.
- If you loathe regulations then we could resort to libertarian fairy tales and use the courts to bankrupt everyone overusing antibiotics every time a resistant bug causes economic damage and death.

"Please, please, let me know when I am no longer allowed to use anti-bacterial soap in my own bathroom."
Put your tinfoil hat on:
Antibacterial Household Products: Cause for Concern
Stuart B. Levy
Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
"The recent entry of products containing antibacterial agents into healthy households has escalated from a few dozen products in the mid-1990s to more than 700 today. Antibacterial products were developed and have been successfully used to prevent transmission of disease-causing microorganisms among patients, particularly in hospitals. They are now being added to products used in healthy households, even though an added health benefit has not been demonstrated. Scientists are concerned that the antibacterial agents will select bacteria resistant to them and cross-resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, if they alter a person's microflora, they may negatively affect the normal maturation of the T helper cell response of the immune system to commensal flora antigens; this change could lead to a greater chance of allergies in children. As with antibiotics, prudent use of these products is urged. Their designated purpose is to protect vulnerable patients."

Report this comment
#67) On November 28, 2009 at 4:47 PM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

lucas1985,

According to that definition of religion, science is yours, as well as your "god."

4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

However, metaphysical beliefs have nothing to do with the physical world.

Really? That's strange. I wonder what we should do about all those people making choices based on what they believe their "god" wants them to do? We certainly can't simply dismiss their actions.

How do we test metaphysical claims?

We measure them in terms of argument, belief, and human action.

You would dismiss the metaphysical world, but in doing so you acknowledge its existence. It's like trying to claim there is no such thing as an argument, by doing so you create one.

If in fact cognitive science has some answers, they are by no means certain either. This is as good a time as any to bring back my quote from earlier:

If we assume that one could say something a priori true about the way events are related, then this would belie its very own thesis that empirical knowledge must invariably be hypothetical knowledge. ---Hans-Hermann Hoppe

And here is another one:

As far as mathematical propositions refer to reality they are not certain and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality. -A. Einstein

Or look at this way. Did Math and Science always exist or are they creations of the human mind? We could say that they always existed but then without the human mind to conceptualize them they are nothing. We could say they are products of the human mind, but without "reality" and the world around us we could never have conceptualized them in the first place.

So we are stuck. The truth is that humans are somehow able to recognize patterns in the world around us. 2+2=4 because we assigned both the value of two and the value of 4.

This doesn't mean that the patterns aren't really there to begin with, but it does mean that they are in fact nothing more than patterns (and constructed ones at that).

Science is still unable to answer the most simple question of all:

Where did it all come from and why?

Could it be that the concept of God is just people recognizing patterns that science is yet unable to explain?

Religion, philosophy, and science. None of these can explain existence by themselves. I would even go so far as to say that none of these can explain themselves without the others.

Dare

 

 

 

Report this comment
#68) On November 28, 2009 at 4:54 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

When people tell me about the origin of the universe being the 'big bang', I ask 'what banged?', lol.

Report this comment
#69) On November 28, 2009 at 5:02 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Dare,

Any product with any claims as having an anti-microbial effect are currently subject to the same regulations as pesticides.  To introduce a new product takes a lot of money to get certified.  And failure to comply with those regulations can result in fines that could kill a small business.

Report this comment
#70) On November 28, 2009 at 5:09 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@NOTvuffett,
"What is the 'normal' temperature of the planet?"
There's no "normal temperature" since there are always forcings which change the energy budget. That said, civilization has appeared and flourished under an epoch of extremely stable climate; the Holocene.

In fact, the whole evolution of the Hominidae family occured in icehouse Earth conditions, which started with the onset of the Antarctic glaciation.

Report this comment
#71) On November 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

NOTvuffett,

I don't doubt it.

(Removes tinfoil hat for a moment)

And don't get me wrong. I do think people should use less anti-bacterial soap. My high school biology teacher suggested diluted dawn dish soap. I just don't think that the government should coerce people into not using whatever soap they want to use.

(Puts hat back on)

And I thought my bathroom was still the one safe haven from the government!

Dare

Report this comment
#72) On November 28, 2009 at 5:14 PM, DaretothREdux (48.12) wrote:

lucas1985,

Your charts are always nice and colorful. Could you please provide the one I asked for earlier?

Please provide me with a model that can accurately predict the price of cotton in Iowa one year from today. Then provide me with a model that can predic the weather in Spain the next day.

If your models are accurate enough to make global decisions based on their projections than surely you could help a fellow investor out with the price of cotton and the weather?

Dare

Report this comment
#73) On November 28, 2009 at 6:37 PM, ElCid16 (93.92) wrote:

@ liveoakgrey,

If what you are saying about Moore is the literal truth, then I'd be more inclined to label him the ignorant and irrational one.  Chlorine, in all practical purposes, is man-made.  Not created, but made  (I agree that you can't create or destroy elements).  Chlorine exists diatomically, is very unstable, and is very rare in nature.  We have found ways to make chlorine (and bromine, for that matter) and have used it for decades as a powerful oxidant.  Chloride on the other hand (which is a single chlorine element with an extra electron, making it much more stable and common in nature) is much more common, existing in compounds such as salt (NaCl).  Salt contains chloride, not chlorine. 

As an environmental engineer, and speaking solely in terms of environmental health, I'd much rather us use other oxidants, or disinfectants that chlorine.  Ozone has no residual and creates no harmful byproducts.  Chlorine does.  Tap water contains byproducts such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids due to our common chlorination practices with drinking water.  These have been proven to be carcinogenic.  Many municipalities are moving toward alternate methods of oxidation to kill coliform in drinking water, such as ozonation or UV disinfection.  Chlorine is indeed on its way out.

And this post, as a whole, is ridiculous.

Report this comment
#74) On November 28, 2009 at 8:47 PM, LiveOakGrey (< 20) wrote:

dkilgour16,

 I'd be perfectly happy to avoid carcinogenic break-down products of chlorinated tap water, if they are actually that risky for your health.  I saw the interview on youtube, I think about 2 or 3 years ago.  I don't know how to create links to other sites within caps blogs (maybe somebody can tell me how this is done?), otherwise I'd see if I could find a link.  Moore was the one relating the story, so I only can relate his own statements about his own experiences with his fellow Green Peaceniks.

Incidentally, I think protecting the environment is a great thing, as long as the methods you are pusuing actually work.  Banning an element sounds insane on the face of it, as Moore stated.  If the other Chlorine products are very rare in nature, then I can see there might be cause to reduce their production for chlorinating tap water, etc.  Assuming of course, that chlorine can be effectively replaced with some alternative method that is comparably cost effective, without reducing it's anticeptic values.  If the population at large can't afford an alternative to chlorinated tap water, and large numbers of our population keep becoming ill with coliforms, they may become vulnerable to other illnesses and become a reservoir of pathogens that comes back to haunt everyone later.  Kind of like overusing antibiotics in food animal production (doesn't strike me as a wise idea).      

There are any number of good things to be concerned about based on accurate science that are worth pursuing cures for.  Maybe excess chlorine is even one of them.  But, the evidence against much of AGW doesn't look nearly as strong as it once did.  Carbon Dioxide follows warming by 800 years, not the reverse.  The global warming issue is still worth study, but not the wholesale cash handouts to anyone touting studies with tenuous claims to relevance.  It's a government backed boondoggle, and like so many of these boondoggles, it rewards the various powers that be, at the expense of the taxpayers in particular, and the larger societies that would otherwise have benefitted from well allocated resources (tax dollars, scientific minds and labs put to useful productive work, etc.) that were shortchanged as a result of bad science backing up bad dogmas.

These ideas are addressed well in "Economics in One Lesson," by Hewitt Hazlitt.  I don't know what he thought about chlorinated water, though.  Maybe it was a Dr. Strangelove kind of thing, where we can infer he worried that it was all a plot to contaminate our precious bodily fluids (with chlorine, NOT chloride!)

-Grey      

Report this comment
#75) On November 28, 2009 at 11:04 PM, topsecret09 (71.64) wrote:

  Whats up ?     http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Report this comment
#76) On November 28, 2009 at 11:11 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

lol, topsecret09, I thought the program comments were the most damning as well.

Report this comment
#77) On November 29, 2009 at 12:51 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

lucas1985: "So, hell to Africa, the mid-East, the American Southwest, the Amazonian rainforest, low-lying areas, Australia because you want balmy summers in northern Canada? "

It isn't a question of what I want.  It is a question of what will be no matter what we do.  Either temperatures will continue up until a phenomena causes a shift back towards ice, or it will eventually head lower until another event changes its direction. As King Philip of Spain said to his admiral after being informed that his Armada was mostly destroyed by storms, "The weather is the weather."

I just hate the disengenuous ecologists.  Tell me you want clean air and water and I am all for it.  Tell me man can control world temperature changes and I have a bridge to sell you.

And while  "the whole evolution of the Hominidae family occured in icehouse Earth conditions, which started with the onset of the Antarctic glaciation" when has he actually  florished as a species?  Hmm I don't think the world population was ever greater than now.

Report this comment
#78) On November 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, ease1 (80.16) wrote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html

Break out the popcorn, it's gonna be a great show.

Report this comment
#79) On November 30, 2009 at 2:01 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

Personally I hope it is. My only reasons are first the economy needs to regain its strength first, and second it has to be worldwide, And sorry, but China doesn't want to play ball yet. 

Report this comment
#80) On November 30, 2009 at 1:12 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

My favorite rantings in the above:

"Science is the opposite of religion". No. The scientific method is an attemp to explain what is observed through theory and trials against the theory to deduce a law from which future predictive outcomes can be determined. It attempts to explain causality. Religion is a belief system based upon "inspiried" writings and events of the past, with rules and practices from which future actions should be guided. It attempts to explain existence. They are different approaches to certain overlapping parts of the universe - not opposites.

The opposite of science is no science.

The opposite of religion is atheism.

"So, hell to Africa, the mid-East, the American Southwest, the Amazonian rainforest, low-lying areas, Australia because you want balmy summers in northern Canada?" I'm now thinking of buying up beachfront on Hudson's bay ... the next Sandals resort could go there.

I am laughing so hard it's not funny!

known as that guy laughing in his cube, nzsvz9 .... eh?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement