Australian Politics Forum - EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?

Back to OzPolitic.com

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment › EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?

(Moderators: Bobby., Sir_Bobby)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26

Send Topic

Print

EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM? (Read 46952 times)

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #345 - Jul 10^th, 2010 at 10:09am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 8:34am:

Paella wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2010 at 6:24pm:

Carried out by a group distinctly free of skeptics ?! Oh my god!

Don't tell me they used a group that was representative of the scientific community as a whole! What folly!

No, they used a group that was representative of one segment of the scientific community......ONLY.

Why didn't they include any of the many equally qualified scientists that don't accept AGW???

You mean like getting a dentist to check the work of a podiatrist?

There are very few climate scientists who don't accept the basic principles of global warming, and that even includes Richard Lindzen and John Christy.

« Last Edit: Jul 10^th, 2010 at 10:15am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #346 - Jul 11^th, 2010 at 7:46am

muso wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 10:09am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 8:34am:

Paella wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2010 at 6:24pm:

Carried out by a group distinctly free of skeptics ?! Oh my god!

Don't tell me they used a group that was representative of the scientific community as a whole! What folly!

No, they used a group that was representative of one segment of the scientific community......ONLY.

Why didn't they include any of the many equally qualified scientists that don't accept AGW???

You mean like getting a dentist to check the work of a podiatrist?

There are very few climate scientists who don't accept the basic principles of global warming, and that even includes Richard Lindzen and John Christy.

But there are quite a few climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC climate models and the 'hockey-stick' thing......

There's a large group of climate scientists that agree with basic global warming, just not with the degree attributed to human causes....

Those are the ones I meant..

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #347 - Jul 11^th, 2010 at 10:00am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 7:46am:

There's a large group of climate scientists that agree with basic global warming, just not with the degree attributed to human causes....

Those are the ones I meant..

You mean the Oregon petition? We've discussed that here before. I'll give you the reference some time.

Re the so-called 'hockey stick thing' - there is a lot of disinformation out there. Every national or international body representing science agrees that the recent (last 50 years) global warming is due to anthropogenic causes.

The main causes are the emission of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) from combustion processes and the manufacture of cement.

About 40-50% (the proportion gets less every year) of that CO2 is ending up in the oceans and the remainder ends up in the atmosphere.

By the way, Steven McIntyre is not a climate scientist. He's an economist and a retired mining CEO. Neither is Ross McKitrick. They are both bean-counters with no qualification in climate science.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #348 - Jul 11^th, 2010 at 12:09pm

muso wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 10:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 7:46am:

There's a large group of climate scientists that agree with basic global warming, just not with the degree attributed to human causes....

Those are the ones I meant..

You mean the Oregon petition? We've discussed that here before. I'll give you the reference some time.

Re the so-called 'hockey stick thing' - there is a lot of disinformation out there. Every national or international body representing science agrees that the recent (last 50 years) global warming is due to anthropogenic causes.

The main causes are the emission of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) from combustion processes and the manufacture of cement.

About 40-50% (the proportion gets less every year) of that CO2 is ending up in the oceans and the remainder ends up in the atmosphere.

By the way, Steven McIntyre is not a climate scientist. He's an economist and a retired mining CEO. Neither is Ross McKitrick. They are both bean-counters with no qualification in climate science.

I'm aware of McIntyre and McKitrick's credentials, as I am of Lord Oxburgh's...

It seems unusual to appoint a vocal,self-confessed AGW proponent with a financial interest in the field of alternative energy, as the head of an investigation into whether one of the main sources of AGW science is above board or not.....

It's like appointing the heads of Shell, BP and Mobil to investigate allegations of petrol price fixing....

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #349 - Jul 13^th, 2010 at 8:55am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 12:09pm:

I'm aware of McIntyre and McKitrick's credentials, as I am of Lord Oxburgh's...

It seems unusual to appoint a vocal,self-confessed AGW proponent with a financial interest in the field of alternative energy, as the head of an investigation into whether one of the main sources of AGW science is above board or not.....

It's like appointing the heads of Shell, BP and Mobil to investigate allegations of petrol price fixing....

That wasn't the purpose of the investigation. It was investigating a claim of malpractice.

« Last Edit: Jul 13^th, 2010 at 9:02am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #350 - Jul 13^th, 2010 at 9:00am

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 12:09pm:

I'm aware of McIntyre and McKitrick's credentials, as I am of Lord Oxburgh's...

It seems unusual to appoint a vocal,self-confessed AGW proponent with a financial interest in the field of alternative energy, as the head of an investigation into whether one of the main sources of AGW science is above board or not.....

It's like appointing the heads of Shell, BP and Mobil to investigate allegations of petrol price fixing....

That wasn't the purpose of the investigation.

Yes it was...the purpose of the investigation was whether or not the scientists had held back data, changed data and modified data, as alleged by people who'd read the 'hacked' emails....

Had they done any of those things, then their intergrity would be questionable for ALL of their work....

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #351 - Jul 13^th, 2010 at 9:05am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 12:09pm:

I'm aware of McIntyre and McKitrick's credentials, as I am of Lord Oxburgh's...

It seems unusual to appoint a vocal,self-confessed AGW proponent with a financial interest in the field of alternative energy, as the head of an investigation into whether one of the main sources of AGW science is above board or not.....

It's like appointing the heads of Shell, BP and Mobil to investigate allegations of petrol price fixing....

That wasn't the purpose of the investigation.

Yes it was...the purpose of the investigation was whether or not the scientists had held back data, changed data and modified data, as alleged by people who'd read the 'hacked' emails....

Had they done any of those things, then their intergrity would be questionable for ALL of their work....

There are many reasons to hold back data apart from fraud. One reason is intellectual property, and another was the fact that they were besieged by unscrupulous individuals intent on character assassination.

Quote:

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #352 - Jul 13^th, 2010 at 11:55am

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 12:09pm:

I'm aware of McIntyre and McKitrick's credentials, as I am of Lord Oxburgh's...

It seems unusual to appoint a vocal,self-confessed AGW proponent with a financial interest in the field of alternative energy, as the head of an investigation into whether one of the main sources of AGW science is above board or not.....

It's like appointing the heads of Shell, BP and Mobil to investigate allegations of petrol price fixing....

That wasn't the purpose of the investigation.

Yes it was...the purpose of the investigation was whether or not the scientists had held back data, changed data and modified data, as alleged by people who'd read the 'hacked' emails....

Had they done any of those things, then their intergrity would be questionable for ALL of their work....

There are many reasons to hold back data apart from fraud. One reason is intellectual property, and another was the fact that they were besieged by unscrupulous individuals intent on character assassination.

Quote:

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

Sorry, but 'intellectual property' would only cover part of the data, and even the FOI doesn't require Intellectual Property to be released....

But how would raw data, like temperature readings from weather stations, come under the heading of Intellectual Property??...The formula or methods that the scientists at CRU created to work with the data....yes that IS theirs....but a list of what the temps were in January in Minsk????

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #353 - Jul 13^th, 2010 at 3:02pm

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

There are many reasons to hold back data apart from fraud. One reason is intellectual property, and another was the fact that they were besieged by unscrupulous individuals intent on character assassination.

What preposterous rot, Mr Musician. Did they take out a patent on the climate to claim intellectual poperty? Or are you by any chance suggesting, subliminally, that we ARE talking about inventions?

And in what way was the release of the full set of data detrimental to their character? In what way did selective release protect them? We are talking about measurements, various readings of instruments at different places and times. How is that detrimental to anyone's character?

Hide the decline indeed.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #354 - Jul 13^th, 2010 at 3:20pm

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 3:02pm:

muso wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

There are many reasons to hold back data apart from fraud. One reason is intellectual property, and another was the fact that they were besieged by unscrupulous individuals intent on character assassination.

What preposterous rot, Mr Musician. Did they take out a patent on the climate to claim intellectual poperty? Or are you by any chance suggesting, subliminally, that we ARE talking about inventions?

And in what way was the release of the full set of data detrimental to their character? In what way did selective release protect them? We are talking about measurements, various readings of instruments at different places and times. How is that detrimental to anyone's character?

Hide the decline indeed.

Quote:

Let me introduce you to the NERC policy on Intellectual Property. Short version: “Who owns the intellectual property? We do.” The UK Ministry of Defence (who run UK Met Office and therefore the Hadley Centre) is orders of magnitude worse in its defensive and bean-counting approach to the supply of, well, just about anything that they have and anyone else wants. The bottom line is (or certainly was, when I worked there) that NERC employees are under pressure to sell anything that can be sold. And if someone asks for something, that means it must surely be worth something, right? Of course this is an attitude that the scientists – who know that they can’t really get any significant price for their work – have always implacably opposed, but we don’t really count for much when the politicians are demanding budget cuts and percentage returns on investment.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/14/climatic-research-unit-scientists-cleared-...

Mr Soren, Don't shoot the messenger.

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. It's just quoting from the HoL Inquiry. In the UK, they have an Official Secrets Act. Any Ministry of Defence data comes under that act, so the CRU scientists were between a rock and a hard place. Release of the data would have been detrimental to them because they would have been in breach of the legislation. It's Britain we're talking about (you know - the land of Mr Bean) They invented pedantic.

Of course, the UK government now has a much more relaxed stance on data.

« Last Edit: Jul 13^th, 2010 at 3:32pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #355 - Jul 13^th, 2010 at 8:49pm

So how much did they charge for the data they DID release? Did they tell the buyer that it was not a complete set of data?
Gedouta town.

Muso, you are not just the messenger. You actually do think that this rot about withholding data for 'intellectual property' reasons is right and proper. You talk as if it was OK with you if Pfeizer researchers set the groundwork on worldwide government policy for drug distribution and kept some data to themselves for 'intellectual property' reasons.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #356 - Jul 14^th, 2010 at 9:53am

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:

So how much did they charge for the data they DID release? Did they tell the buyer that it was not a complete set of data?
Gedouta town.

Muso, you are not just the messenger. You actually do think that this rot about withholding data for 'intellectual property' reasons is right and proper. You talk as if it was OK with you if Pfeizer researchers set the groundwork on worldwide government policy for drug distribution and kept some data to themselves for 'intellectual property' reasons.

It wasn't about cost. It was about government protocols. If you were a researcher, would you prefer to 1. Uphold the law, especially if you were asked to sign an Official Secrets Act declaration form prior to taking up employment, or 2. Would you make your own decision and just release the data?

On the second point - Do I think Intellectual property is a good thing? Well, in some cases, yes. If a researcher was engaged to carry out research, then that takes a certain amount of time and effort, then why would he bother if the results of his toil was made freely available to all and sundry?

You disapprove of Intellectual Property Rights? What are you? - a communist?

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #357 - Jul 14^th, 2010 at 9:04pm

muso wrote on Jul 14^th, 2010 at 9:53am:

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:

So how much did they charge for the data they DID release? Did they tell the buyer that it was not a complete set of data?
Gedouta town.

Muso, you are not just the messenger. You actually do think that this rot about withholding data for 'intellectual property' reasons is right and proper. You talk as if it was OK with you if Pfeizer researchers set the groundwork on worldwide government policy for drug distribution and kept some data to themselves for 'intellectual property' reasons.

It wasn't about cost. It was about government protocols. If you were a researcher, would you prefer to 1. Uphold the law, especially if you were asked to sign an Official Secrets Act declaration form prior to taking up employment, or 2. Would you make your own decision and just release the data?

On the second point - Do I think Intellectual property is a good thing? Well, in some cases, yes. If a researcher was engaged to carry out research, then that takes a certain amount of time and effort, then why would he bother if the results of his toil was made freely available to all and sundry?

You disapprove of Intellectual Property Rights? What are you? - a communist?

Have your intellectual property rights, by all means - but get out of the business of providing advice to governments on public policy unless you are prepared to release all your data to be checked and tested.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #358 - Jul 15^th, 2010 at 8:21am

Soren wrote on Jul 14^th, 2010 at 9:04pm:

Have your intellectual property rights, by all means - but get out of the business of providing advice to governments on public policy unless you are prepared to release all your data to be checked and tested.

If it had been his data, then it might have been more of an issue. It wasn't his data though. It belonged to the Met Office at Hadley.

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

male

Re: EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM?
Reply #359 - Jul 15^th, 2010 at 12:16pm

muso wrote on Jul 15^th, 2010 at 8:21am:

Soren wrote on Jul 14^th, 2010 at 9:04pm:

Have your intellectual property rights, by all means - but get out of the business of providing advice to governments on public policy unless you are prepared to release all your data to be checked and tested.

If it had been his data, then it might have been more of an issue. It wasn't his data though. It belonged to the Met Office at Hadley.

Cute.

Who decided what to hide? They never made it clear that the data wasn't a full set until they were found out. They were happy to go along.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge