Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Alan A.





Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 237
Reputation: 22.4Reputation: 22.4
votes: 4
Location: Western Canada

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a few convenient omissions (e.g the tree lines...proxy data, conveniently replaced by temperature readings... actual data at the time threshold they chose, all this process being a scientific aberration. So that's how they really "hid the decline").

But I think the main idea of the video is to ridicule the conspiracy theory. And that's correct but a bit dishonest, as it is an ad hominem technique. Of course there's no conspiracy among some hundreds of scientists who endorsed all that. Only some data manipulation (tricks) at the beginning by a handful of scientists with an agenda or a theory they wanted to prove by any means; then, the adjusted data is reproduced by the others and used in their research without suspecting the data was apparently fudged. Those naive scientists described as the "consensus" are the real victims of all that. I understand that a growing number of them are a bit shaken now. Good on them.
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To RuralandRight:

I watched those videos you posted and here is what I think:

John Stossel is talking about how the electricity that powers his electric golf cart comes from a coal plant anyway so he is asking "why bother going electric?". I'm into electric cars, not out of any environmentalist reason, but because I think they are a new frontier of science and a thing of beauty. Because of this interest I happen to know that John Stossel is being disingenuous.

The explanation is a little long-winded but I'll give it a go: there are inefficiences whenever power is generated or transferred. If you add up the inefficiences from the coal plant, power transmission lines, charging the electric, and then the actual driving, you get a better efficiency (in terms of carbon emissions, if that is what you are going for) than driving a gasoline powered car. That, and to reduce dependance on oil, would be my guess as to why electrics are subsidized. If you think he is correct and electrics are less efficient than gas cars, google it for yourself.

I thought what the other guy was saying about uncertainties in climate change was a great point. I heard a Harvard professor using the same argument a few years ago, comparing acting on climate change to buying home insurance. Of course the decision depends on a bunch of factors: What is the probability that the earth is warming due to our actions, What effect will our actions have if we get started now? and many others. Of course these are complicated questions, but I think it is the best starting place for discussion.

what do those videos have to do with the CRU hack?
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But I think the main idea of the video is to ridicule the conspiracy theory. And that's correct but a bit dishonest, as it is an ad hominem technique.


Who are the conspiracy theorists in this case?

Is the "hide the decline" thing a scientific aberration or not?

Is the "nature trick" thing a scientific aberration or not?

I thought this video should have mentioned deletion of data and the freedom of information act. Those things I have a problem with.
Alan A.





Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 237
Reputation: 22.4Reputation: 22.4
votes: 4
Location: Western Canada

PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BHundo wrote:
Is the "hide the decline" thing a scientific aberration or not?


I don't know if you're really wondering, or do I sense some irony...

The scientific aberration is in jumping from proxy data to actual readings in the same curves. There's a significant margin of error in both sets of data but for different reasons, so either way you cannot homogenize them all together in a reliable fashion. But they chose to do it anyway, and at the moment in the historical curve they chose to be convenient for their 'cause': which is where the proxy started to show a decline instead of a rise. That's the "hide the decline" trick and it is scientifically questionable to say the least.
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it wrong to use multiple data sources? or just the way he did it is wrong?

are there any articles on this specifically you have found?
Alan A.





Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 237
Reputation: 22.4Reputation: 22.4
votes: 4
Location: Western Canada

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BHundo wrote:
Is it wrong to use multiple data sources? or just the way he did it is wrong?

are there any articles on this specifically you have found?



It's not wrong per se. But the result can just be utterly inaccurate. The margin of error can increase dramatically. One thing I learned the hard way in my earth science-related research (and colleagues' as well) back in the 1980s is that the moment you try to merge two sets of data from different sources, you need to 'smoothen' and 'cheat' with the numbers in order to correct the gaps and anomalies. There's a lot of interpretation work involved. What bugs me the most currently is that the laymen don't know how potentially inaccurate a conclusion that kind of data handling can lead to. They trust those scientists and see them as demi-gods because they're doing something they (the laymen) don't understand. But the earth scientists are also humans: the research starts with a hypothesis that they try to prove or disprove; it's more likely they try to prove it because it's more gratifying than a conclusion that the hypothesis was wrong. It's a natural bias.

Then enters the mythical "peer review". But that's another story.
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It's not wrong per se. But the result can just be utterly inaccurate. The margin of error can increase dramatically.


Is this your only problem with what was contained in the emails?
Alan A.





Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 237
Reputation: 22.4Reputation: 22.4
votes: 4
Location: Western Canada

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BHundo: what exactly is your business with all those questions? You cut 95% of the answer, along with the name of the poster in your quote (why?), then you ask another question as if you didn't understand the general idea or read the comment at all. I'm done with this until maybe we get fresh comments from fresh posters. I have the feeling nobody cares anyway. Merry Christmas.
infantry67





Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 192
Reputation: 36.5Reputation: 36.5Reputation: 36.5Reputation: 36.5
Location: Niagara, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alan A. wrote:
BHundo: what exactly is your business with all those questions? You cut 95% of the answer, along with the name of the poster in your quote (why?), then you ask another question as if you didn't understand the general idea or read the comment at all. I'm done with this until maybe we get fresh comments from fresh posters. I have the feeling nobody cares anyway. Merry Christmas.



Not true, slowly but surely the sheeple are waking up to this scam...
potan





Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 582
Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3Reputation: 36.3
votes: 2
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The media were quick to find the "nazis" among the tea party protesters but they have been utterly silent on the flag waving communists at Copenhagen.


Link
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the reason i'm asking questions is i'm still not certain exactly what was done by these guys. The stuff about deleting emails and trying to keep stuff out of the journals is awful, but I don't see how the other stuff (the "trick" thing) is relevant. I tried to find an article from a legitimate news source explaining this to me, and maybe I'm blind, but I can't. If anyone else does, please post.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, you're not going to find an AP wire story that explains it in detail. The vast majority of mass media is written for the lowest common denominator of readers, and won't get into details explaining what exactly was done and why it was incorrect. Maybe you could define your idea of a 'legitimate news source'?
BHundo





Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 56
Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5Reputation: 4.5
Location: SW Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i didn't ask for it to even be legitimate, i just want something to read. Most of all I'm curious where you guys have got this information. I'm not trying to argue a point here, I am just trying to understand exactly what happened. From what I've read, I gathered nothing of what you guys are talking about.

So again, if you guys have any articles that you think are particularly good, or videos of people explaining this stuff, I'm all ears.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BHundo wrote:
So again, if you guys have any articles that you think are particularly good, or videos of people explaining this stuff, I'm all ears.

IMO, video is a poor medium for explaining technical details. I'm honestly surprised you haven't found anything about Climategate, but somehow managed to find this forum. At any rate, the best places to read up would be at climateaudit.org and wattsupwiththat.com. In addition to their own posts, they've got tons of links to other people who've done analysis. If you want to see CRU's side of the story, go to realclimate.org , which I think you've already mentioned.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Climate Scientist's Files LEAKED!

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB