[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Climate change vs BANDits
Question from an ignorant.
Can you recommend me a good, didactic (not trendy name-calling) book
on global warming?
Thank you very much.
2010/2/13 Jaime Headden <email@example.com>:
> Grant Godsman wrote:
> <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.>
> Recently this list spent almost a month discussing the issues of what
> journalism and science mean to one another. In this case, the above
> represents a misconstruction of the facts in the case. Were the emails
> leaked, the scientists at hand guilty of not revealing data that was already
> apparently available, and were actually guilty of modifying the data apart
> from the need to fit three to four completely different datasets together to
> form a continuum, this would say nothing to the matters that affect
> anthropogenic global warming, which is what Tom Holtz and others have already
> stated. The nature of AGW (it's truth or not) and what happened at
> Climategate are completely different issues, and it is inherently dishonest
> to assume that what occured with the "scandal" has anything to do with the
> data involved that argues for AGW.
> I say this without having any opinion on the nature of AGW.
> Jaime A. Headden
> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
> "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn
> from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
> disinclination to do so." --- Douglas Adams (Last Chance to See)
> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
> different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
> has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
> his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion
>> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:02:11 -0800
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> To: email@example.com
>> Subject: 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
>> 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 wrote:
>>> From: David Marjanovic
>>> Subject: Re: Climate change vs BANDits
>>> To: "DML"
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> -- 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
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.