77 replies to this topic

[Jimmy Leeds]

Leaked Emails


............yet there are the lemmings that still think this lie is true.

[njdevsfn95]

Leaked Emails


............yet there are the lemmings that still think this lie is true.

Also, I take it this man Global Warming skeptic just changed his mind for the hell of it?

[Devils731]

Also, I take it this man Global Warming skeptic just changed his mind for the hell of it?

Muller said his study had no comment on Man's influence or lack of influence on Global warming.

http://dev.socialfun...rticle3371.html

While acknowledging the reality of climate change, the Berkeley report declined to conclude to what extent it is due to human activity. Nor did it factor in the effects of global rises in ocean temperatures, although it did conclude that warming has been greatest on land.

http://www.nydailyne...rticle-1.969870

"Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."

He also was not a skeptic in how it's being portrayed.

In 2006 he already beleived global warming was probably man caused:

http://www.commondre...s06/0623-03.htm

Although Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming

Muller just didn't like how Mann had gone about trying to show it.

In 2008 Muller believed this:

http://www.grist.org...ts-get-physical

The bottom line is that there is a consensus -- the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] -- and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can't.

Muller also did not consider himself a skeptic, only skeptical of the methods used in the past.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1072419.html

"It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic -- only a scientific skeptic," he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. "Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller 'Physics for Future Presidents' I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth.' But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic."

Muller's co-author of the paper also wasn't happy with how Muller handled the papers release:

http://judithcurry.c...best/#more-5526

http://www.dailymail...-colleague.html

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’

In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.

As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

Because I selected those quotes I only think it's fair for me to say that I don't think Curry feels strongly for or against man made global warming, her quotes only seem strong because she was trying to counter some of Muller's quotes and work about the paper that she didn't feel he was justified in making.

[Copper Kettle]

Because I selected those quotes I only think it's fair for me to say that I don't think Curry feels strongly for or against man made global warming, her quotes only seem strong because she was trying to counter some of Muller's quotes and work about the paper that she didn't feel he was justified in making.

And what do YOU think?

[Devils731]

And what do YOU think?

I don't think we have a good enough predictive model yet to say anything for sure.

[DevsMan84]

To put it in as few words as possible, the global warming/climate change people are full of sh!t.

[oofrostonoo]

Collect data... reach a conclusion.

Have a conclusion, find data.

There is a difference.

[MantaRay]

Collect data... reach a conclusion.

Have a conclusion, find data.

There is a difference.

+1

[devilsadvoc8]

Collect data... reach a conclusion.

Have a conclusion, find data.

There is a difference.

Forming a hypothesis may be done up front and then data is collected and tested to prove said hypothesis. Quack science? no, simply the scientific method.

[Onddeck]

i just thought about this the other day, but why is Global Warming adapted as such a strong POLITICAL issue. its like the liberal point of view is it exists, and the conservative point of view seems to be it does not. but in reality, what is either party gonna do about it, whether it exists or not? Why will conservatives defend it so strongly- like what part of it offends them? And why do liberals take offense to it, and what makes them special to say that its their idea to try and fix it.

.. because as sad as it is, if it is a true theory, this world is too late and it does not have enough motivation to actually turn it around, or slow it done. its sad but true

[Pepperkorn]

Leaked Emails


............yet there are the lemmings that still think this lie is true.

Ahh me - you seem so pig-headed.

David Koch's own study to disprove global warming proved it's real.

I dont give a sh!t if a bunch of UK scientists wanted to kill some misguided publications - who gives a fvck? So scientific publications aren't objective -- well THERE'S a SHOCKER!

Seriously -- anyone who says climate change is a myth is -- just a moron honestly.

HEY! Guess WHAT! Sandusky is innocent -- his lawyers say! That is how AMAZINGLY stupid you sound - period. paragraph.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 29 November 2011 - 11:25 PM.

[Pepperkorn]

I don't think we have a good enough predictive model yet to say anything for sure.

and we can't say Sandusky blows boys until there is a trial -- lets let him keep hangin' out with the kids then mkay? Because what the hey -- there's no REAL proof is there.. I don't buy the proof they SAY they have -- it's all a big fraud a hoax. I'll just wait and see. It's all a clever scheme set by Penn - those intellectuals wanting to take center stage as PA's number one football team.

THIS IS WHAT YOU ALL SOUND LIKE! Don't make excuses for yourselves this is the whole of humanity and you a$$holes might even think "hey that's a really inappropriate comparison." No it's not that's the really sad thing.

for lawrd sake don't you feel like a jackass even TRYING to say this isn't happening? You should. man the dumbfvckage on this earth just blows my mind.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 29 November 2011 - 11:18 PM.

[Pepperkorn]

i just thought about this the other day, but why is Global Warming adapted as such a strong POLITICAL issue.

Because industry wants to make money now. Regulation will curb their profits - they are too unimaginative to find a better way. They really don't give a sh!t about the future. Instant gratification - for themselves. Industry controls politics. Money and power control politics not logic or common sense. Please

Edited by Pepperkorn, 29 November 2011 - 11:24 PM.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Ahh me - you seem so pig-headed.

David Koch's own study to disprove global warming proved it's real.

I dont give a sh!t if a bunch of UK scientists wanted to kill some misguided publications - who gives a fvck? So scientific publications aren't objective -- well THERE'S a SHOCKER!

Seriously -- anyone who says climate change is a myth is -- just a moron honestly.

HEY! Guess WHAT! Sandusky is innocent -- his lawyers say! That is how AMAZINGLY stupid you sound - period. paragraph.

lol Tell me how you really feel !!

[Devils731]

The lead "skeptic" author said it made no comment on man made global warming and the second author said there has been no warming in the last decade or do and the models says that shouldn't be the case in a fast rising carbon dioxide environment if carbon dioxide is such a huge factor.

PK, I didn't see you comment on anything written, just called people stupid and tried to set up a strawman about Sandusky. Myself setting up a strawman using the Duke lacrosse team could be true but would be just as silly to do.

[Pepperkorn]

It's called an analogy. The fact you're even calling it a straw man show it's not worth my time to debate this. Fact is, for me there is no debate. there is smart and there is stupid.

Personally I think that you fall into the Paterno camp of knowing full well the truth and just turning a blind eye in light of cost/benefit analysis ( ) which I can't dissuade you from - or just for your own message board amusement, which again makes my input pointless.

Then there are the truly obtuse who honestly think climate change is a myth. Why on earth would I ever try to enlighten them?

as for man made or not - it's not even part of the discussion for me. If it's inevitable then I'd rather tilt at windmills then sit on my fat ass making excuses for my sloth and/or gluttony.

[DevsMan84]

And then there are truly the lunatics that believe that man-made global warning is real because a bunch of crackpot scientists with monetary and political agendas told them it is:) If anyone disagrees with them, then they are deniers and belong in the same camp as the Sandusky people (what an awful analogy, but then again not unexpected from PK)

[mrthemike]

Forming a hypothesis may be done up front and then data is collected and tested to prove said hypothesis. Quack science? no, simply the scientific method.

Whoa, hold on a sec. You almost got it right but you missed an important step.

You form a hypothesis. Then you collect data. You then draw conclusions based on your data and you either prove or disprove the hypothesis. The research also needs to be peer reviewed and repeatable. Good science means that you are willing to change your opinion based on the collected data. Bad research is if you are purposely picking data to prove a hypothesis instead of gathering data and letting the results prove or disprove your hypothesis.

I sometimes feel people lose sight of what science really means. It means that the scientific method is applied and opinions should be malleable when the studies start to show that something is happening based on repeated and good research.

My guess here is that none of us are climate change experts, just like none of us are evolutionists or astrophysicists. To a certain degree we need to trust the scientific community unless we decide to become experts in those fields and deeply understand the science. There is evidence supporting climate change based on carbon dioxide release, there is evidence to support evolution and there is evidence to support the expansion of the universe.

Instead of taking hard stances on something we don't really understand we should be supporting the scientific community in reaching the best possible results; this sh!t is extremely complicated. As it stands right now, the scientific community is leaning towards man having an impact on climate change and I am comfortable supporting that position for now. Just because some scientists might be conducting bad research doesn't mean the whole thing is false.

Stay skeptical but support science and keep an open mind...and that goes beyond climate change.

P.S. I find the intrusiveness of religion in our political matters much more dangerous than the idea that climate change could be brought on in part by man.

Edited by mrthemike, 30 November 2011 - 03:10 PM.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Nice post, mrthemike. Very well said.

To me, though, what scares me is the "Where's the harm in believing in man-caused global warming?" attitude. It's like we don't care about what's actually good or bad for the planet, we just want what SEEMS like it's good for the planet.

It kills me when someone spouts the importance of switching from incandescent to fluorescent bulbs, but then says we should use plug-in cars. Like an automobile uses less electricity than a light bulb. Plug-in cars make us feel better because the pollution isn't right under our noses, but that electricity comes from the same dirty power plants that we need to switch light bulbs because of.

There's all kinds of stuff like this. There are studies showing that biofuels actually generate a bigger carbon footprint than traditional fossil fuels; eco-friendly wetlands protection laws create spaces that naturally generate methane, which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2; some re-forestation efforts are planting trees that generate nitrous oxide, which is also more powerful than CO2; if you break one of those fluorescent blubs, call the Hazmat team, because those things are chock full of mercury; most recycling programs in the U.S. are so poorly run that they generate more CO2 than they prevent; and on and on and on.

In trying so hard to make things better, we're actually making them worse (if, in fact, we do impact our climate).



Also, this is kind of old news, but ...

http://news.yahoo.co...-192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

There's sound science on both sides. It seems like the only scientists with any integrity are the ones who point to the findings on both sides and say, "Honestly, we have no idea if mankind is making things worse. Let's keep looking ..."

[mrthemike]

Yea, that's what happens when politics get involved in scientific research.

Edited by mrthemike, 30 November 2011 - 05:51 PM.