Thread: The Great Climategate Debate @ MIT World

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How old are you? In 10 years I've seen snow fall usually starting before Halloween to usually starting just before Christmas. It's gradual, you're not going to notice it in a few years, but in a decade you certainly will. Of course, you have to be old enough to remember a decade ago.

And yes, Mario, the accepted scientific nomenclature is Climate Change because rednecks keep saying "We broke cold records too last year *puts hand in pants then sniffs it*."

Something I found to be VERY interesting:




Oh, no, global warming/climate change can't possibly be happening. Look, I live in a very beautiful location, and the glaciers are a very large part of our way of life. I've noticed droughts getting worse and winters getting more mild, especially compared to 10 or 13 years ago (yes, I remember back that far). The facts are literally all around us...if mankind would open its eyes, we would see this.

Still missing the point.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The amount isn't the problem, it's the rate of change. Animals can evolve to slow changes, the problem is that it's changing at a rate never seen before. Really fast changes cause really massive extensions.



Way way way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay outside of a normal deviation. In science you always look at the simplest explanation first. In the past 150 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have skyrocketed. Cars and industry put out huge amounts of COs. Simplest explanation: Industrialization has increased atmospheric CO2. The fact that all scientific data backs that up is just icing on the cake.

Haven't you been paying attention? Mann fudged his dendroclimatology data, which is where the labelless graph you posted comes from. It was faked in order to exaggerate the warming of the 20th century and to erase the medieval warming period.

Do some research. Look up the hockey stick debacle (the word debacle could be replaced with scam, fraud, etc) Look up Mann Bradley and Hughes 1998, and then look up Steve McIntyre. The graph you posted is a complete fraud.

In science, you always look at your sources first to make sure the data is sound and the process is repeatable, so that you don't make a complete fool of yourself when someone points out that others have already checked and found out that the data is wrong, and the process was not repeatable.

Haven't you been paying attention? Mann fudged his dendroclimatology data, which is where the labelless graph you posted comes from. It was faked in order to exaggerate the warming of the 20th century and to erase the medieval warming period.

Do some research. Look up the hockey stick debacle (the word debacle could be replaced with scam, fraud, etc) Look up Mann Bradley and Hughes 1998, and then look up Steve McIntyre. The graph you posted is a complete fraud.

In science, you always look at your sources first to make sure the data is sound and the process is repeatable, so that you don't make a complete fool of yourself when someone points out that others have already checked and found out that the data is wrong, and the process was not repeatable.

Dumbest post I've seen it quite some time. Try again.

Originally Posted by Xei

Dumbest post I've seen it quite some time. Try again.

Can't you see the incredible irony in this? Your post has nothing to do with the topic, contributes nothing to the discussion and does nothing to contradict the post you quoted. Not only that, the post you quoted argued from the same position that your previous posts had adopted. Without a little evidence to the contrary, we'll have to assume you have assumed the childlike position of 'see someone you normally disagree with and immediately call them stupid for no reason'.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Can't you see the incredible irony in this? Your post has nothing to do with the topic, contributes nothing to the discussion and does nothing to contradict the post you quoted. Not only that, the post you quoted argued from the same position that your previous posts had adopted. Without a little evidence to the contrary, we'll have to assume you have assumed the childlike position of 'see someone you normally disagree with and immediately call them stupid for no reason'.

I'm going to keep quoting your posts for a record of your epic hole digging.

I don't see why I should feel obliged to agree with somebody just because they're on the same 'side' as me. Such comments clearly illustrate your primitive partisan mindset. Neither do I disagree with somebody because I usually disagree with them. Same conclusion. I disagreed with you because I'm interested in the objective truth and everything you said is totally wrong.

The labelless graph you refer to has a nice big label down the left hand side saying CO2 CONCENTRATION. It has nothing to do with temperature you dolt! It illustrates the large increase in CO2 concentrations in the last century which is a very well-established scientific fact. Michael Mann's dodgy hockey-stick graph has absolutely nothing to do with this. Your knee-jerk reaction to seeing hockey-stick shaped data and automatically calling 'bullshit' without even reading it is pretty revealing about your mindset too.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

How old are you? In 10 years I've seen snow fall usually starting before Halloween to usually starting just before Christmas. It's gradual, you're not going to notice it in a few years, but in a decade you certainly will. Of course, you have to be old enough to remember a decade ago.

And yes, Mario, the accepted scientific nomenclature is Climate Change because rednecks keep saying "We broke cold records too last year *puts hand in pants then sniffs it*."

Im 21. Where Im from, the seasons have not changed. It snows at the same time, it gets cold at the same time, the leaves change at the same time. Just because one year it doesn't snow until Christmas doesn't mean something strange is happening. This year it didn't snow until December but it sure as hell was cold enough to snow in November. There is natural variation in the weather. Heavy snow is a rare occurance on any given year in Indiana. Snow doesn't really matter as long on it's cold enough. My senior year in high school (3 years ago) we had a snow day in April. That was an unusual event but it was in the opposite direction that you would expect. I don't know about the arctic because I don't live there, but in Indiana everything is normal. Besides, I think you need to look at more than 10 years of weather data before you can say there is a real change. You've probably read about the little ice age haven't you? That lasted a couple hundred years but it wasn't a permanent shift.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm going to keep quoting your posts for a record of your epic hole digging.

I don't see why I should feel obliged to agree with somebody just because they're on the same 'side' as me. Such comments clearly illustrate your primitive partisan mindset. Neither do I disagree with somebody because I usually disagree with them. Same conclusion. I disagreed with you because I'm interested in the objective truth and everything you said is totally wrong.

The labelless graph you refer to has a nice big label down the left hand side saying CO2 CONCENTRATION. It has nothing to do with temperature you dolt! It illustrates the large increase in CO2 concentrations in the last century which is a very well-established scientific fact. Michael Mann's dodgy hockey-stick graph has absolutely nothing to do with this. Your knee-jerk reaction to seeing hockey-stick shaped data and automatically calling 'bullshit' without even reading it is pretty revealing about your mindset too.

Xei, you're ridiculous. You're a confrontational jackass. I didn't see the labels. Maybe I jumped to conclusions and that's why I didn't look hard enough. Everything is a fight to you that you have to win. The internet is only fun if someone gets humiliated. Except, it doesn't work like that this time because I'm perfectly fine with being wrong and admitting it. I don't get humiliated for making a mistake. Are you even capable of discussing something without slinging insults and trying to put people down?

Butthurt much?

Don't pretend like you weren't insulting; you were, and it was baseless.

Come on, it was a dumb post. And when I told you it was a dumb post, did you check it to see if I had a point? No, you ranted about me being stupid and biased.

I apologise for being so blunt in the first place but really, you specifically complained about the issue of a graph having no labels when it actually plainly had labels, and I thought that was funny enough to warrant my bluntness.

Cmon guys, we're not subscribed to this to read insults.

Xaqaria, this thread is in the science thread. Take political debating to ED.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Xaqaria, this thread is in the science thread. Take political debating to ED.

Are you saying that there is no political motivation behind the scientific debate? Do you believe that no scientist is motivated by politics?

Although I was wrong in mentioning Mann's study in relationship to your graph, what do you think about that issue? Is it not clear evidence that the science is at least partly driven by non-scientific motivations?

One idea/theory is that the sun is causing rises in average heat on Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and other planets (like has happened SO many other times) and the rises in heat are causing rises in CO2. In other words, it is not the rise in CO2 that is causing warming of the planet; it happens in the reverse direction. The rise in heat is part of the natural cycle Earth has always had, and CO2 rises with the heat.

Is that something to rule out?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

And yes, Mario, the accepted scientific nomenclature is Climate Change because rednecks keep saying "We broke cold records too last year *puts hand in pants then sniffs it*."

They used to think it was a warming, but now they think it is just a changing? This issue is such a clusterfuck. It's like a bad movie with a bunch of stupid sequels. Stay tuned for Global Change VII: Return of the Global Cooling. I am very much counting on watching that alarmist craze happen. Stick around.

A few scientists are motivated by politics. They are not credible scientists. Of this list is "scientists" who worked for Big Oil and testified that global warming is not man made, or "scientists" who worked for Big Tobacco and testified that smoking doesn't cause cancer. These are quasi-scientists. They have no credit and should never be quotes as a scientific reference.

There are also scientists motivated by Big Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

A few scientists are motivated by politics. They are not credible scientists. Of this list is "scientists" who worked for Big Oil and testified that global warming is not man made, or "scientists" who worked for Big Tobacco and testified that smoking doesn't cause cancer. These are quasi-scientists. They have no credit and should never be quotes as a scientific reference.

What about 'cap and trade'? Isn't an entirely new industry that could possibly jump start the stumbling economy as much of an incentive (if not more) than big oil? There is, after all, billions of dollars in grant money at stake here.

One idea/theory is that the sun is causing rises in average heat on Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and other planets (like has happened SO many other times) and the rises in heat are causing rises in CO2. In other words, it is not the rise in CO2 that is causing warming of the planet; it happens in the reverse direction. The rise in heat is part of the natural cycle Earth has always had, and CO2 rises with the heat.

Is that something to rule out?

I may have misunderstood you but if not, it's not correct that the sun could be causing the current CO2. It hasn't been this high for millions of years. It's almost definitely industry. It's quite an easy calculation to work out approximately how much CO2 would have been released by the combustion of our oil and the corresponding rise in concentration, so I'm guessing the figures work out.

It's true that increased temperatures do cause increased CO2 levels. One of the reasons is that the solubility of CO2 decreases with temperature increasing. That's nowhere near enough to account for current levels though, and it takes many centuries for the oceans to release all of that CO2.

I think the political aspect should be included here, as it is in the OP.
Also for the reasons stated above. And political sciences are sciences.

Can anyone link to a scientific journal, not a newspaper article or anything?
I would really like to read up on it a little bit. But as far as I understand it,
a lot of the data is not open for public. By the way, what is that all about?

You can read Scientific American, National Geographic, Discover, Science. They have articles written by actual scientists.

Political science is another debate, start a new thread. Climate Change is not debatable, it's happening, and caused by human activity. There is as little scientific debate left as their is for the theory of the big bang.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You can read Scientific American, National Geographic, Discover, Science. They have articles written by actual scientists.

Political science is another debate, start a new thread. Climate Change is not debatable, it's happening, and caused by human activity. There is as little scientific debate left as their is for the theory of the big bang.

+1

It is the media's job to sell doubt...remember that.

Don't be too quick to trust the current trend. IPCC scientists have been busted falsifying data.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-sci...l-warming.html

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories


When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

From the second article:

Alarmist scientists who predicted that the North Pole could be “ice free” this summer as a result of global warming have been embarrassed after it was revealed that Arctic ice has actually grown by around 30 per cent in the year since August 2007.

Back in June, numerous prominent voices in the scientific community expressed fears of a mass melting of the polar ice caps, including David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, who told National Geographic Magazine, “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history].”

You should never stop being a skeptic.

Originally Posted by Mario92

+1

It is the media's job to sell doubt...remember that.

Doesn't the media sell fear and alarm more often than doubt?

I thought the media convey critical thinking? Now there's a surprise.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You can read Scientific American, National Geographic, Discover, Science. They have articles written by actual scientists.

Political science is another debate, start a new thread. Climate Change is not debatable, it's happening, and *caused* by human activity. There is as little scientific debate left as their is for the theory of the big bang.

*Influenced*