Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
I just know that a bunch of government officials tinkering with mother nature is scarey.
Let's remember that the govt. had the brilliant plan to put carp into fish hatcheries to control algae naturally in the 70's. Now they want to poison an entire canal system, kill all the fish, in order to save the Great Lakes from an imminent carp invasion that threatens the other fish species in the Great Lakes.
Moral of the story - whenever man/govt thinks they can engineer a solution, the unintended consequences can be even more dangerous.
There are changes in nature beyond our control. We should put our energy into adapting.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Seamstress
That's the dumbest sh'it I've ever heard.
Let man screw up the environment and then just adapt to the fuk up.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
very impressive, ed, then why don't you use your impressive network of experts and contact "someone who knows" about the data nasa refuses to release despite repeated foia requests...i'm sure you'll be able to get the data (and a logical explanation as to why a government agency would refuse to obey the law), then you can share that data with the world via st and clear up this whole mess once and for all
until that information is released, i'll continue my skepticism rather than taking the word of scientists who have either been proven to be frauds or continue to support/excuse the proven frauds
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I'm sure it's riveting, honest, and factually correct reading.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Anyone know of a link to any blogs that the students at
East Anglia University are posting at?
I bet we'd get an interesting perspective
on this Climategate scandal.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
There’s a legal concept known as “fruit of the poison tree”. Basically, it states that any evidence or conclusions derived from improper or illegal techniques are inadmissible in court.
In the world of science, “fruit of the poison tree” would be any research that did not follow the well-established methods of scientific proof. Methods which include maintaining the integrity of observed, raw data. The reproducibility of results. Open availability of data for independent review and confirmation. Accurate prediction of future data by any model or theory derived from that data. At a minimum any theoretical model should completely and accurately predict past data points and phenomena.
As a for instance, Freud’s theories are no longer considered scientific. Why? The major reason is that they are completely useless for predicting future human behavior. Despite the nearly complete consensus of psychiatrists a generation ago that Freudianism represented hard scientific reality, it doesn’t.
Today, no one would take you seriously as a scientist if you based your work upon Freud.
The theories of Karl Marx were once considered scientific. They no longer are. Why? Lack of predictability for one and the use of outdated and thus irrelevant data in the formation of his theories, poor modeling.
Margaret Mead, once a giant in the field of Anthropology, is now regarded as nothing more than a fraud. Why? She made up false data to buttress her fantasies of what human behavior should be. Incidentally, and perhaps tellingly, she ended her days practicing witchcraft.
The scary thing about the above three is that while we know their theories are nothing but nonsense. Their work is still used as pillars of leftist thought and policy.
Thus, we come to global warming and Copenhagen.
Rest of article.
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/fruit-of-the-poison-tree-tarts-from-the-poison-fruit/
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine not only makes all evidence obtained from improperly-obtained evidence itself inadmissible, it puts the burden of proof on the party seeking admission of such evidence that it was not obtained by improper means.
Legal restrictions on evidence exist for two purposes: (1) to insure that those enforcing the law abide by Constitutional limitations; and (2) to guard against juries' tendencies to decide cases irrationally, because experienced members of the legal system know that logic and jury are incompatible concepts. One could argue, in fact, that virtually all of the American evidentiary jurisprudence comes from these two principles.
Fortunately, science has no such restrictions. Rather than rejecting evidence, we discount or accept it based on the reliability of its sources and the methods used to obtain it. Unless others can duplicate reported results, we tend to discount the findings.
Despite the best of Ed's pleas, I, at least, find the emails and other actions of those involved very strong evidence of polemics used to support their preferred positions. The fact that the findings were published elsewhere does not disprove that others sought to suppress the publication and dissemination of this same work. This does not mean, however, that I should dismiss the work of everyone who ever used the work of the CRU or Mann, nor even their works. Exaggeration still contains truth.
While I remain skeptical of the remedies suggested, I think we do our cause a disservice by claiming that the emails invalidate all climate change studies. They do much, much less than that -- but what they do remains important. They show that major actors in this play aren't approaching the problem with a blank slate.
John
|
|
rotten johnny
Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
|
|
the climate is changing....polar ice caps are melting and winters are getting shorter...having lived in the sierra the last 30 years it is pretty obvious that weather patterns have changed....one doesn't need a phd. in climatology to notice this.....so why are all the climate change deniars' clutching at straws desperately trying to disprove this reality..... ? i guess when Rush is the deniars' source of data then science fiction can become reality......
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Britain’s Lessons From The Winter of 2008-2009
The UK has been experiencing the coldest winter in several decades, and hopefully policymakers have learned a few basic lessons from this. Here is my wish list, which seem painfully obvious.
1. Britain can’t rely on global warming to stay warm in the winter.
2. Britain can’t rely on solar power to stay warm in the winter. There just isn’t enough sun (which is why it is cold in the winter.)
3. Britain can’t rely on wind power to stay warm in the winter. During the coldest weather the winds were calm (which is one reason why the air temperatures were so low.)
4. Britain can’t rely on Russian natural gas to stay warm. The gas supply was cut off for weeks due to politics.
The only large scale energy supplies the UK can rely on in the near future are coal, oil and a small amount of nuclear. So next time you see a “coal train of life“ remember to wave at the driver. And I hate those ugly, motionless windmills popping up all over the countryside.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Ed, I definitely don't consider myself an expert. I have a layperson's knowledge with some science training in other areas. So I can appreciate the years of painstaking work and expertise gathered. And I try to listen to them.
Frankly, I'm appalled by most of the claims of the denialists. It's a combination of arrogance--because they think they know much more than they do--ignorance, and greed. If climatology was a discipline like medieval basketweaving I wouldn't get so pissed off. But it isn't like that: it has very real implications.
The Washington Times is like the National Enquirer. Sure, it nails things sometime, but I've got better things to do than read things with an axe to grind, left or right wing. If it was a more objective source then fine. But I just don't trust it. And if someone is going to present it as a reliable source proving some great vast climatology conspiracy, then I'm calling out the crap.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Groan...skip, I'm not an expert in climate science. Not even close.
Are you?
Funny how you seem downright offended by expert opinions, by scientists, by the fact that there are people who might know a lot more about a topic than you. You view it as elitist.
I do know a thing or two about IDing dubious sources. That doesn't take expertise as much as common sense and a BS meter.
BTW, thanks for quoting me out of context.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
"The UK has been experiencing the coldest winter in several decades"
Even without detailed understanding one can come up with a hypothesis for this. The UK's weather is strongly affected by the North Atlantic conveyer belt. A cold bottom current driven by Arctic melt water the complementary surface counter current being the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current. Abnormal arctic temperatures could be affecting both the magnitude of seasonal flow and also the location of the North Atlantic Current. Were the warm surface current to be pushed further west away from Ireland's shores I would expect there to be change. The North Atlantic sea currents and thermoclines are monitored extensively for the purposes of sonar so this data should be out there on the net. The unclassified parts at least.
Here on the Left coast we have known for years that a change of a couple degrees in the South Pacific water temperature gives us El Nino and its counterpart la nina.
It does not take much to affect the climate/weather and the North Atlantic is a throttle point for the massive flows existing there. This is why there are waves "going rogue" off the Irish coast. Such as the one that carried off Mike Reardon.
Edit:
And I appreciate John's correction. That's how one hopes to get better.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
jstan,
I always admire your posts, so I'm a little reluctant to say I found something I can correct: It's "la nina." :-)
John
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
ed, i can't understand the science any better than al gore, but i do understand when i read scientists from mit and other prestigious institutions claim there is no definitive proof of agw...i understand something is off kilter when gore and others refuse to debate with opponents...i understand the whole notion of science, which in simplest terms is all about skepticism, can no longer exist when "scientists" claim "the science is settled" or actively and maliciously seek to squash dissent
dirt and others refuse to acknowledge that the ipcc is made up of as many bureaucrats as scientists...and accuse highly credentialed scientists of being motivated by greed...and reject clear and indisputable evidence that scientists have committed fraud...and ignore the fact that these same unethical scientists have taken BILLIONS of taxpayers' dollars themselves
by the way, who created the whole idea of carbon offsets and green futures? ken lay of enron infamy...and paul krugman worked for him, too
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Time to throw Base104 into the snake filled pit.
It's a "socialist" conspiracy.
We really must purge our ranks of the people who won't get it right.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Fraud is found out by practicing science..
The fraud has been found out and now there's a lot of obfuscation going on!
Now there may be other evidence that supports the anthropogenic hypothesis, but it's evident now that this body of work is past suspect and into the worthless column.
You may as well use it to prove that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is responsible for climate change.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!