[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Climate change vs BANDits

"I'm not aware of a country other than the US of A where manmade global warming 
is a political issue. Elsewhere, it's a _scientific_ issue. As in 
"peer-reviewed primary literature"."

What? You should get out more! ;)

It's a political issue everywhere, not just the USA, because at heart the IPCC 
is not a scientific body. It is run via the UN by member nations (they are the 
ones who appoint the chairman etc) and reflects their interests. Always has and 
always will.

It is naive to think anything else.

If you think this issue isn't political anywhere else, you haven't been 
anywhere near the UK or Australia recently.

With respect, it is you who fails to understand the import and gravity of the 
Climategate emails. Certainly the office of the freedom of information 
commission in the UK does not agree with you. They have clearly stated that in 
their view breaches of the law took place. It is only the fact that it is too 
late to prosecute under the relevant legislation that those responsible will 
escape punishment.

And to gloss over the issue of data hiding - something that has gone on for 
years among this group of people - and not reflect on what this means for free 
and open scientific enquiry is especially worrisome.

The data that was eventually released was the highly adjusted and manipulated 
data, not the raw data needed to evaluate whether or not the adjustments etc 
were valid or not.

And as the source code released by the hacker, (though there is in fact the 
possibility that the information had been carelessly left in an open location), 
reveals, what we do see is an absolute mess.

And now it transpires that the raw data has, er, "disappeared."

Quite frankly, the various blogs at science.blogs have merely sought to defend 
the party line, almost without question. But events have left them behind and 
they have become virtually irrelevant to this debate.

The lame response of 'nothing to see here, move along why don't you' is just 
not good enough.

It may have been the hottest decade on record, not that that m
ans terribly much, but, as Dr Phil Jones himself has admitted today, it was 
also a decade that saw no additional warming and that there was a slight 
cooling trend towards the end.

What does all this mean? Really, who knows. Which is my basic point. We do not 
know enough to be stating with the kind of evangelical certainty that some have 
about what is going on, what is causing it and what the future holds.

We should calm down and start trying to be cleverer about how we respond to 
climate change.

Utopianism's "sole function is to allow its devotees to condemn what exists in 
the name of what does not." Jean-François Revel

--- On Sat, 13/2/10, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
> Subject: Re: Climate change vs BANDits
> To: "DML" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Received: Saturday, 13 February, 2010, 8:19 PM
> >  I don't think the science
> of man made global warming is as settled as
> >  birds are dinosaurs.
> You can't think about stuff you don't know. You should go
> out less and read more. :-)
> >  Too many ex vice presidents and environmental
> loonies involved for a
> >  start.
> <sigh>
> What do I care whether Al Gore is fat.
> I'm not aware of a country other than the US of A where
> manmade global warming is a political issue. Elsewhere, it's
> a _scientific_ issue. As in "peer-reviewed primary
> literature".
> >  Then there are so called scientists refusing to
> publish their data
> >  and refusing to comply with freedom of
> information requests.
> Climategategate: the scandal of quote-mining an enormous
> number of purloined e-mails and not even understanding what
> the quote-mined snippets mean.
> For instance, the alleged refusal to publish data is a
> misunderstanding of the following two facts: 1) the
> scientist in question doesn't own the data and therefore
> doesn't have the right to publish them -- addressing such
> requests to him is simply a mistake; and 2) the data are
> already in the public domain. Just downl
here are
> four independent series of measurements in the public
> domain, and all show warming, warming, warming, warming.
> All this is documented in detail. For most of December and
> January, there were several posts on it on http://scienceblogs.com per week, 
> and they all got a
> lot of traffic.
> >  Not to mention the coldest winter for decades.
> This decade is the warmest on record.
> I repeat: this decade is the warmest on record.
> More required reading: http://realclimate.org, 
> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid, and first of all 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
> -- the latter explains how science itself is biased against
> "climate skeptics".

Yahoo!7: Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, and for 
free at PLUS7. www.tv.yahoo.com.au/plus7