Associated Press reviews "Climategate"

Pitbull said:
oooo ffs.

BCO and w1z4rd having a chat on PM:

BCO:
"I think We all need to go and look for articles and flood MyBB with them. That way we'll try and force it down peoples throats."

w1z4rd:
"Good idea"

BCO:
"Been at it for weeks now and it's still not working, do you think they know the truth"

w1z4rd:
"How could they? they are stupid idiots"

BCO:
"Maybe we're wrong you know?"

w1z4rd:
"WHAT!?!?!? You are now on my ignore list"
Click to expand...
:D
 
As I've stated before, I'm not really interested enough in the whole controversy, imagined or otherwise, to voice a personal opinion. We're pumping tons of carp into the air. It can't NOT have an effect. That's about as developed as my opinion on the matter gets. However, I did come across this tabled summary of the two sides yesterday - I don't know if it'll be of any use, but perhaps someone might find it interesting.

Unfortunately the table is in the form of a .gif image, so I can't paste it as myBB won't allow such a large (in proportions, not file-size) image file. Scaled down it would just be unreadable.

The author's methods do seem to be sound:
Some Notes

I researched this subject in a very particular way. I deliberately chose not speak directly to any climate experts or leading scientists in the field. I used only publicly available web sources.

Why? Because I wanted to simulate what it’s like for people trying to learn about climate change online.

My conclusion is “what a nightmare”. I was generally shocked and appalled by how difficult it was to source counter arguments. The data was often tucked away on extremely ancient or byzantine websites. The key counter arguments I often found, 16 scrolls down, on comment 342 on a far flung realclimate.org post from three years ago. And even when I found an answer, the answers were excessively jargonized or technical.

Most of the info for this image is sourced from Realclimate.org. It’s an amazing blog staffed tirelessly by some of the world’s leading climatologists.

Unfortunately, the majority of the writing on there is so scientific and so technical, it makes the website nigh on useless to the casual, curious reader.
Runaway Feedback

This image was a mammoth undertaking, especially for someone like me, unschooled in climate science. So I appreciate your understanding if any errors have crept into the process. If you spot any, please get in touch and I’ll will correct them on the double.

In every case, wherever possible, I went back the original data. (I’ve included a ZIP of all the data I’ve collected plus a spreadsheet of all the sources). And all the graphs in the image are generated from the original temperature records and other data sources. Feel free to rifle through and check everything.

RealClimate.org are (now) keeping an archive of all the data – if you want even more!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Click to expand...

There's a white-on-black version if you find the black-on-white difficult to read.
 
w1z4rd said:
Clearly there are not enough stories because we still have mentally retarded climate change deniers on the forum.
Click to expand...

What about Interplanetary Climate Change?

The entire solar system - not just our one small planet -- is currently undergoing profound, never-before-seen physical changes. This paper will address and scientifically document a wide variety of significant examples, drawing from a host of published mainstream sources.

...



Sun: More activity since 1940 than in previous 1150 years, combined

Mercury: Unexpected polar ice discovered, along with a surprisingly strong intrinsic magnetic field … for a supposedly “dead” planet

Venus: 2500% increase in auroral brightness, and substantive global atmospheric changes in less than 30 years

Earth: Substantial and obvious world-wide weather and geophysical changes

Mars: “Global Warming,” huge storms, disappearance of polar icecaps

Jupiter: Over 200% increase in brightness of surrounding plasma clouds

Saturn: Major decrease in equatorial jet stream velocities in only ~20 years, accompanied by surprising surge of X-rays from equator

Uranus: “Really big, big changes” in brightness, increased global cloud activity

Neptune: 40% increase in atmospheric brightness

Pluto: 300% increase in atmospheric pressure, even as Pluto recedes farther from the Sun
 
enigma243 said:
As I've stated before, I'm not really interested enough in the whole controversy, imagined or otherwise, to voice a personal opinion. We're pumping tons of carp into the air. It can't NOT have an effect. That's about as developed as my opinion on the matter gets. However, I did come across this tabled summary of the two sides yesterday - I don't know if it'll be of any use, but perhaps someone might find it interesting.

Unfortunately the table is in the form of a .gif image, so I can't paste it as myBB won't allow such a large (in proportions, not file-size) image file. Scaled down it would just be unreadable.

The author's methods do seem to be sound:


There's a white-on-black version if you find the black-on-white difficult to read.
Click to expand...

Very interesting image, enigma, thanks. That about sums up the whole "debate".
 
Phronesis said:
This was a bit worrying:
A Short History of the Polluted Peer Review Process
A Climatology Conspiracy?

The peer-review process seem to have been compromised by...
Click to expand...

I still don't see any evidence of a global conspiracy. The Douglass and Christy "conspiracy" article refers to four "conspirators" (the IPCC reports alone had over 2500 contrinutors), and a paper of theirs (DCPS) which was published anyway. At worst there was an effort from the scientists to delay publication of the DCPS paper. No smoking gun.
 
Not talking about a global conspiracy.
Point being, the peer-reviewed process was compromised. IPCC reports are based on peer-reviewed articles.
 
Phronesis said:
Not talking about a global conspiracy.
Point being, the peer-reviewed process was compromised. IPCC reports are based on peer-reviewed articles.
Click to expand...

How was it "compromised" when the DCPS paper was published, both online and in print?
 
Arthur said:
Associated Press and "impartial" go together like "science" and "Scientology". Would you accept an impartial study from Fox News? I suspect not.
Click to expand...

Well then we are lucky, as science has as much to do with scientology as dog has to do with hotdogs :D Glad you agree they are impartial.
 
You only have to read the article (the whole article) to understand how unethical the process was with regards to the DCPS paper.
I hope you or anyone else don't think that is ethical behaviour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X