Aerothorn on 8/12/2009 at 18:34
Now I feel all warm and gooey inside at the sight of this peaceful resolution:)
SD on 9/12/2009 at 03:21
Quote Posted by Vivian
Also, fucking alarming lack of faith in the integrity of an entire field of scientists. Thanks.
It's nearly 2010 and you fuckers haven't invented hoverboards yet
Getting off lightly IMO
Scots Taffer on 9/12/2009 at 04:53
edit
zombe on 9/12/2009 at 05:43
Quote Posted by CCCToad
So I've downloaded the files, and I have to say that the people saying that "Its just scientific research people don't understand!" and "They're just trying to improve the graphs" are ignorant about the actual content of these messages.
You give yourself more credit than is due. You do not know the context! I mean, there is lots of jargon, lots of pieces missing (ie context established around the water cooler - etc), and neither of us is an expert on the science behind it.
For example, let's take this:
Quote Posted by CCCToad
One email, for example, has one of the scientists advising another on how to out somebody that he is suspicious about and says that he can be "ousted" if we can find "evidence that he is a skeptic".
First - odd that you "quoted" one of the few pieces that are massively circulated out of the rather big dataset. This sounds like you let someone else think for you - that can not end well.
Quote Posted by The (more) full quote
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years. I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published. Proving bad behavior here is very difficult.
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
I get the distinct impression that they are talking about (
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/02/in-the-beginning-friends-of-science-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-brothers/) this kind of "skeptic" - that really-really ought to be ousted (trough official channels with hard evidence). Can't find anything wrong with it.
I remind you that it is reasonable to expect quite harsh language in PRIVATE communications. I retrospect - probably not very nice - but no more wrong than anyone else reading it trough illegal means.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
tell you the truth, Actually reading the documents has done more to dent my faith in global warming than anything else I've been able to find.
Prioritize your information sources by significance.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
It doesn't seem to imply that the theory of climate change is incorrect, but it does indicate that there's quite a bit of bad science poisoning the well.
Bad science happens - especially when backed by "skeptics". However, thous never get anywhere as the flaws will soon enough be apparent and the papers will be retracted. If the cause of shit getting published was faulty peer review process then, as your "skeptics" quote suggest, it will also be investigated.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Here's one excerpt I picked out.
Vincent Gray has not found much (well, as far as i know - ~none really) support so far. He was (has done nothing the last 17 years) a scientist (chemistry - specifically: coal). He has never published anything peer-reviewed on the subject of Climate Change. Lately is known to produce things like "The Greenhouse Delusion" etc ... in summary: worthless source.
Also, noticed some talk about melting ice and rising sea levels some time ago. One tidbit to add: the main part of sea level rise (for present and near [up to 100-200 years]) is from thermal expansion alone.
DDL on 9/12/2009 at 11:50
Plus if anything that except simply smacks of general scientific frustration at having a paper rejected.
In essence, you do the research, compile it into a paper, submit the paper for publication in a journal. The journal first sends it to a number of referees to examine it for worthiness: these are fellow scientists in your field, your peers (hence peer review). You are often allowed to specify people that should NOT be allowed to referee your paper (for example, your direct competitors -science is after all an irritatingly competitive field), but you can still get people rejecting it out of hand simply because they don't like you, or don't agree with you.
And there's really not a lot you can do about that, unless you can find evidence that they're doing that, which I suspect is what's going on here.
ceebs on 9/12/2009 at 12:18
(
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/02/in-the-beginning-friends-of-science-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-brothers/) http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/02/in-the-beginning-friends-of-science-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-brothers/
Quote:
Meanwhile, in the topsy-turvy world of “climategate”, scientists who drew attention to shoddy “skeptic” science, and its promotion by dubious interests, are vilified as “gatekeepers” blocking those with whom they disagree, even by George Monbiot of all people. Yet the real villains like Marc Morano and Tom Harris and their fossil fuel industry backers continue to get a free pass in the mainstream press. That’s the real scandal here.
Pyrian on 9/12/2009 at 21:04
I would like to address, for a moment, the argument that "greening" the world would destroy the economy.
I think that argument is, at best, very poorly supported, and at worst, outright backwards. The reality is that our economic output has been more than enough to sustain the world's population for some time now. We are not in particular danger of falling below subsistence levels on a global scale; we're not even close and haven't been for a very long time. In short, the supply-side isn't likely to collapse.
On the demand side, creating a massive demand for efficient and sustainable products is highly likely to stimulate the global economy for at least as long as the problem remains significant - decades, probably. This will divert resources to well-paying jobs in design and engineering, as well as the support networks and education such efforts require.
I don't believe in the massive downside predicted for carbon caps. This is not an intractable problem, and solving problems is quite frankly surprisingly good for most developed economies.
CCCToad on 10/12/2009 at 04:39
Quote Posted by smallfry
And why is it that global climate change has been branded as from the left anyway?
It really shouldn't be, but it seems to me that the problem of what I call "atmosphere pollution", has been co-opted by people who see it as an opportunity to advance a collectivist vision of society. How seriously they regard it is visible by the fact that to them, conservation is just something that other people do.
There is a pretty close parallel between global warming and religion: those who actually practice what they preach are few and far between.
.
