Page 79 of 210 FirstFirst ... 296975767778798081828389129179 ... LastLast
Results 1,951 to 1,975 of 5243
  1. #1951
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    :::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy

    Eyup.

    I'm sure I got the unvarnished, honest truth out of that guy. (rolls eyes)

    Typical for your sourced material. Feels good to post, I'm sure. I can get to the specifics, but lets attempt to establish a baseline for discussion. Hopefully you will do better than PopTech. The following questions are not loaded, and merely intended to offer some common ground that can be accepted by both of us to form the basis of a good conversation.

    Is intellectual honesty important?

    If so, what is it? If not, why not?

    I will, answer first, as that is fair.

    Yes.

    and

    Just about any good online definition works for me. Google is that away, but if one wants a link here is one that is just as good as almost any other:
    https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2...ual-honesty-2/
    So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

    Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

    If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

    And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

    Pretty straightforward questions.

  2. #1952
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,830
    :::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy


    So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

    Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

    If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

    And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

    Pretty straightforward questions.
    The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

    Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

    Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

    A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
    Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
    A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
    The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

    Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

    The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to pe ions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
    Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
    Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
    An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
    http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-mann-...ge-lawsuit-641

    2009 called and wants it's ty argument back.

  3. #1953
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    :::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy. , it's bumped for anyone; maybe Manny will come back and take a stab at it.

    Eyup.

    I'm sure I got the unvarnished, honest truth out of that guy. (rolls eyes)

    Typical for your sourced material. Feels good to post, I'm sure. I can get to the specifics, but lets attempt to establish a baseline for discussion. Hopefully you will do better than PopTech. The following questions are not loaded, and merely intended to offer some common ground that can be accepted by both of us to form the basis of a good conversation.

    Is intellectual honesty important?

    If so, what is it? If not, why not?

    I will, answer first, as that is fair.

    Yes.

    and

    Just about any good online definition works for me. Google is that away, but if one wants a link here is one that is just as good as almost any other:
    https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2...ual-honesty-2/
    So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

    Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

    If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

    And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

    Pretty straightforward questions.

  4. #1954
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    :::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy. , it's bumped for anyone; maybe Manny will come back and take a stab at it.
    I doubt it.

    He's a chicken .

  5. #1955
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Somebody help me out here. Manny? RandomGuy?

    Northern European summer temperature variations over the Common Era from integrated tree-ring density records

    ABSTRACT: Tree-ring chronologies of maximum latewood density are most suitable to reconstruct annually
    resolved summer temperature variations of the late Holocene. The two longest such chronologies have been
    developed in northern Europe stretching back to the 2nd century BC, and the 5th century AD. We show where
    similarities between the two chronologies exist, and combine portions of both into a new summer temperature
    reconstruction for the Common Era. To minimize the transfer of potential biases, we assess the contribution of the
    candidate reconstructions’ measurements, and exclude data (i) from exceptionally young and old trees, and (ii)
    produced by different laboratory technologies. Our new composite reconstruction reveals warmer conditions
    during Roman, Medieval and recent times, separated by prolonged cooling during the Migration period and Little
    Ice Age. Twentieth century warmth, as indicated in one of the existing density records, is reduced in the new
    reconstruction, also affecting the overall, millennial-scale, cooling trend over the late Holocene (0.30 ˚C per
    1000 years). Due to the reduced biological memory, typical for tree-ring density measurements, the new
    reconstruction is most suitable for evaluating the rate and speed of abrupt summer cooling following large volcanic
    eruptions. Copyright # 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


    So, I am reliably informed and, as the above graph demonstrates, an august team of researchers from the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland (a consensus?) describe their finding as depicting "a long-term cooling trend of -0.30°C per 1,000 years over the Common Era in northern Europe”. That's a lot of cooling during a period when we've been told the planet was warming, wouldn't you say? Coincidentally, they note that their temperature reconstruction “has centennial-scale variations superimposed on this trend,” which indicate that “conditions during Medieval and Roman times were probably warmer than in the late 20th century,” when the previously-rising post-Little Ice Age mean global air temperature hit a ceiling of sorts above which it has yet to penetrate.

    Interesting. What does it all mean?

    I think it means that when you put the modest temperature rise, of the latter part of the 20th century (because that's the period we're told is drop dead proof we're headed for catastrophe), into the context of, say, the past 2,000 years, the whole AGCC argument kind of goes soft,eh? Context is key -- even in science.

  6. #1956
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    :::BUMP:::

    Are their no AGCC defenders left in Spurstalk?

  7. #1957
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    :::BUMP:::

    Are their no AGCC defenders left in Spurstalk?
    hardly, just no AGW-deniers worth a to piss at.

  8. #1958
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    hardly, we just can't respond to reasonable, fact-based, evidence of how wrong we've been these many years.
    Fixed it for you bouts. You're welcome.

  9. #1959
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,830
    :::BUMP:::

    Are their no AGCC defenders left in Spurstalk?
    You tried to resurrect the manufactured controversy of those stolen emails and are asking for specific dates for global warming.

    http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static...hange-full.pdf

    I linked this before as it was from the National Science Foundation and the Royal Society. It tells you the time frames you keep asking for and outlines the science with empirical examples. They do a much better job than anyone will here in answering your questions but we both know nothing is going to sway your opinion.

    It's kind of funny because you are trying to rehash the same from 5 or more years ago. HOCKEY STICK AL GORE WHEN IS WARM! HANSEN AND MANN EMAIL DEBBILS! It's a losing issue in coastal states and now that the financial industry is at odds with the petro industry this is a sunk issue especially in GB. You live inland so you don't give a but it's turning into a losing issue in coastal states and areas. The last GOP primaries showed that less than a year ago.

  10. #1960
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    I doubt it.

    He's a chicken .
    Or maybe, just maybe, I took a busy holiday week off, and forgot about some argument on the internet, and had a hootin' lot of fun with my family.

    Nah.

  11. #1961
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    So, you've answered you baseline questions and I don't disagree so, let's move to the specifics.

    Are the e-mail excerpts, included in Steyn's article, accurate?

    If so, how has the AGCC consensus insured the the biases exposed have been eliminated and that the science is truly void of such manipulations?

    And, important to me (and, I suppose, other skeptics), would you concede such shenanigans could be the basis for a reasonable skepticism of what we're being told by the AGCC consensus crowd?

    Pretty straightforward questions.
    Define "accurate".
    Accurate to the overall tone/intent of the entire communication, taken in context?
    Or accurate word-for-word excerpts?

    So, you've answered ... and I don't disagree so, ... the biases exposed have been eliminated and that... is truly ... important to me.

  12. #1962
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Well, the effect of warming from the sun has finally stopped in about 2002... Could that why we have the warming hiatus?


  13. #1963
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Or maybe, just maybe, I took a busy holiday week off, and forgot about some argument on the internet, and had a hootin' lot of fun with my family.

    Nah.
    I was speaking of Manny...

    :::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy. , it's bumped for anyone; maybe Manny will come back and take a stab at it.

  14. #1964
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Define "accurate".
    Accurate to the overall tone/intent of the entire communication, taken in context?
    Or accurate word-for-word excerpts?
    Don't be a Chumpesque pedant.

    Are the allegations true? Did principal scientists in the "consensus" engage in tomfoolery? And, if they did, have the cir stances that led to the deceptions been corrected by the remaining "consensus?" But, maybe most importantly, would you agree this type of manipulation of the scientific data and process is a legitimate cause for skepticism among those not part of the "consensus?"

  15. #1965
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    world population growth in the Anthropocene era of anthropogenic global warming



    deforestation for wood for cooking, heating.

    coal and oil burning for electricity

    explosion of polluting industrial activity, esp in countries with little or no pollution regulations.

  16. #1966
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    In answer to the second question, apparently they haven't.

    What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud?

    “Ocean acidification” (OA) is receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the global warming/climate change narrative is built.
    ...
    Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that, he told me, “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.”

    Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in e-mail communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there are real world data. Feely and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH levels.

    Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of diagram-co2_emissions (1)the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it. He went to the source. The NOAA paper with the chart beginning in 1850 lists Dave Bard, with Pew Charitable Trust, as the contact.

    Wallace sent Bard an e-mail: “I’m looking in fact for the source references for the red curve in their plot which was labeled ‘Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2.’ This plot is at the top of the second page. It covers the period of my interest.” Bard responded and suggested that Wallace communicate with Feely and Sabine—which he did over a period of several months. Wallace asked again for the “time series data (NOT MODELING) of ocean pH for 20th Century.”

    Sabine responded by saying that it was inappropriate for Wallace to question their “motives or quality of our science,” adding that if he continued in this manner, “you will not last long in your career.” He then included a few links to websites that Wallace, after spending hours reviewing them, called “blind alleys.” Sabine concludes the e-mail with: “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.” But communications did continue for several more exchanges.


    In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

    In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:

    “…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.”

    “…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th Century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).”
    Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”

    In his last e-mail exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the e-mail string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no do ent found” response.

    Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”
    Yeah, apparently the "consensus" is still up to its old tricks.

  17. #1967
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518
    The only fraud is the POLITICAL propaganda and lies by you AGW deniers, shills and hucksters for BigOil and BigCorp.

    The biggest fraud, lies is from You People is that AGW is a hoax, a massive, conspiratorial fraud by 10s of 1000s of scientists over many decades.

  18. #1968
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    :::BUMPED::: for RandomGuy. , it's bumped for anyone; maybe Manny will come back and take a stab at it.
    I doubt it.

    He's a chicken .
    Or maybe, just maybe, I took a busy holiday week off, and forgot about some argument on the internet, and had a hootin' lot of fun with my family.

    Nah.
    I was speaking of Manny...
    You might have unbolded my name in your post quote to make that a bit more clear. Just sayin'.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-30-2014 at 06:55 PM.

  19. #1969
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Don't be a Chumpesque pedant.

    Are the allegations true? Did principal scientists in the "consensus" engage in tomfoolery? And, if they did, have the cir stances that led to the deceptions been corrected by the remaining "consensus?" But, maybe most importantly, would you agree this type of manipulation of the scientific data and process is a legitimate cause for skepticism among those not part of the "consensus?"
    Only for you would a simple clarification be such a cause for insults.

    Since you can't be bothered to clarify, I will take a stab at honestly answering your question then.

    No, the quotes are not accurate in the way you appear to mean the term. They do not indicate the level of fraud you are alleging, and by most independent accounts were taken so far out of context as to be actively misleading.

    To prove the kind of "tomfoolery" and epic fraud you are attempting to allege here you have quite a far way to go.

    I would agree that manipulation of scientific data and process would be a cause for concern were it real, and proven to a reasonable degree, which I don't see here.

    (edit)

    "if so..."

    Since I don't find the quotes accurate, then there is no second question to answer.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-30-2014 at 07:06 PM.

  20. #1970
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    In answer to the second question, apparently they haven't.

    What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on pHraud?


    Yeah, apparently the "consensus" is still up to its old tricks.
    Sooooo someone got a chart wrong? Am I reading that correctly?

    That's more big proof that there are "tricks" going on? Really? Really?

    My first impulse is to treat this article at face value honestly and fairly, and dive into it.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2456.html

    Start with the reference paper and source of the "bigger than climategate" scandalous graph, then go on to see what the science actually says, and write a bunch of posts detailing, yet again, what I actually found, and how that just didn't ultimately support your thesis, just as I have done in the past.

    Then I thought, "why bother, he's going to ignore it like he does everything else."

    Maybe later.

  21. #1971
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Sooooo someone got a chart wrong? Am I reading that correctly?

    That's more big proof that there are "tricks" going on? Really? Really?

    My first impulse is to treat this article at face value honestly and fairly, and dive into it.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2456.html

    Start with the reference paper and source of the "bigger than climategate" scandalous graph, then go on to see what the science actually says, and write a bunch of posts detailing, yet again, what I actually found, and how that just didn't ultimately support your thesis, just as I have done in the past.

    Then I thought, "why bother, he's going to ignore it like he does everything else."

    Maybe later.
    And you lecture about intellectual honesty.

  22. #1972
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    You might have unbolded my name in your post quote to make that a bit more clear. Just sayin'.
    Mea culpa

  23. #1973
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    And you lecture about intellectual honesty.
    Yes, I do, as you exhibit so many of the signs of intellectual dishonesty. Here is a good article on that:

    http://informingthemisled.onlineinfi...al-dishonesty/

    I could easily run through this, and pick out instances where you would hit that checklist. Feel free to do the same for me, maybe you will learn something.

    The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that people like you who tend to buy into this conspiracy theory argue in much the way that the nutters who blather on about faked moon landings or secret government building demolitions do. They are generally even worse at being honest than you are.

    To be intellectually honest:

    My refusal to really consider your posted article is not really fair to you or your argument.

    Frankly, I am a bit weary of your general laziness, dishonesty, and lack of respect. Lazy because instead of doing the honest legwork for yourself, you come here after finding something that looks sciency or what you think is a "gotcha" and/or emotionally appealing to your confirmation biasses, throw it in the "lib s" faces, and then run away when I take my time to, as my conscience dictates, evaluate it using critical thinking and effort. Dishonesty because when I point out the flaws, you rarely admit them, if ever. I have found the majority of what you post here to be at best, logically flawed, and at worst outright misleading, but only after I spend a good chunk of my time doing a lot of reading.

    I know with some high degree of certainyy, you would never return the favor of doing the same, much as Cosmored, mouse, Parker2112, PopTech, NBADan don't.

    My time these days, however, is somewhat limited. So I have been forced to stoop to your level. I am employing the same mental short-cut you do here, and simply assume that what you posted likely fits the already identified pattern. I won't bother to examine my underlying assumptions or ultimate conclusion on this topic, i.e. that most people who profess skepticism about AGCC care very little for what is true.

    Why don't you do my work for me?

    Tell me why or how the article you posted is flawed? what are its strengths? Weaknesses? How much evidence does it really cons ute? What does it really mean?

  24. #1974
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,518


    "I'm not a scientist" but "I'm proud BigCarbon "

  25. #1975
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Boutons. That is so stupid. I'll bet if congress was asked the same two questions that the climate science were asked, at least 80% of the republicans would agree.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •