text
stringlengths 1
41.5k
| label
stringlengths 4
23
| dataType
stringclasses 2
values | communityName
stringlengths 4
23
| datetime
stringdate 2007-06-05 00:00:00
2025-05-14 00:00:00
| username_encoded
stringlengths 136
160
| url_encoded
stringlengths 188
560
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
let's assume there was [no warming the past 10 years](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html), despite all the models to the contrary...what then? should i start wearing a AGW hair-shirt anyway and await the second-coming of AGW? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWNDdiODNJb0FvemlxeFJDNVdGemFGVE5LY3RJUlZLdENWaGVla0JlZ0I3T3ItdnZ3SWYyZWM2emkweFlvUHJRR0N1T3p3NDFjb2V5WnBfVEVNUFNhUWc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzRUZnYnNEdEgzTEU3OUlwWFNsTjAzLTlBR1k3ZDZMMzBKVEw5NFFpVmVJY2R6VkNGcVJoTzZyMmM1VXc0YktuOGRFb0x6OEVrUmdHc0R1NHd5WXdWVjQ2Zk9fYXdJOGMwcjZuUmxmUzBfY3lJYndDaE54RzlUMWZfaXhvb2szUFczSjlpZ0dRVEFuUzBHdlVFcy1ybGx1WjJjWFU3Snh0UUhBNi1mamp6c0lWWFBiN2YyTDRXYXhzODVMRU9mUl95ZW5GMThJUTh6eFM5S0xOdEZCMjBoUT09 |
I think you prove the point: Without understanding the techniques of the Mann et al (1998) paper, the particularities of the Briffa data (i.e. the reference to Keith) and multiproxy temperature reconstructions in general, how can anyone interpret the meaning of this sentence, let alone make conclusions about motivations and conspiracies? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWdENBNjFBd29RUTBUOU9rbnRPYWFwTEZCcHJzaEYwTGdhQy0wTTFKSVoyMnIwQnhfRHRfNmViUGlORjV6djdfSUdScFo4MFJ5OTB5bXQtNUtHTlZlc0E9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzZzhMSVZfVTBwdVRrOVVPUC1WQ1FxTHFLVHdoT05XckcyT2J2ZTFFMmJReTVRcVVLS29JaFA2OGZROWdvTzVyV19tRmVPUzcwWjBBSHo2TXBpelV2WFpfV2syeWFha2J5Y2hxREpUMVdVTW9udXRFdmI4MEJaaERwZTJXZXhOZVZaRXVXNjBkLV93d0tra1JwaUw5VXR0NUx1djhlMW5hQTU2REFsNDFzOXRORXQyU2pPWXYyeG5zSjNERUc1V3VCaDdRUFJrLVdSN1QzQ3luTkVuZU91QT09 |
The point is more that it is caused by what can only be described as natural variability. We still don't know precisely what is causing that natural variability. It's things like ocean currents, volcanoes, solar, planetary, cosmic ray and lunar influences, to name but a few. It's all the things that would have happened anyway if humans weren't around, all other things being equal.
The sceptics argument would be that natural variability trumps pretty much anything that man can do climatically, and while man does have an effect, it is far smaller than we are being told to believe. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVHZmS0lCMTNIcnlSblZxMDYxLWlMck9ncnVwQm5kemJCaXdzT3ZPYU9ETXNRS1BBeUpoR2ZwQWVHYmZmUE9LN0M3N2FVLWl4aHoyZnBpSldIdkgxMmc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzdm5GaDBuZzA4YmtGQm1SalpvVlRoRm13cGc2b2xqVUJYSHYzQ3hreGdPTkNlSExhcXRjOXAyWksyUkp2NkR6RllEV20wel8xV1l3YXJ5WlRDZkctSjgtUUo4c3pIV2pGaFJ1RUF3VEE3cVB4VVFNZms2bXBoYTZIQjhURXhOOURCdkVCZ3p5LUl6OGlsZ3lKSnJ6UXFEQTBzbFlPNHJDLXRzLUFsd2hKeEhsemJJeGZHUFFsZW1TOFlCdU9hZWxaTFFBTUtVUFRuV0VESUFsWDYxUXVRQT09 |
The point is more that it is caused by what can only be described as natural variability. We still don't know precisely what is causing that natural variability. It's things like ocean currents, volcanoes, solar, planetary, cosmic ray and lunar influences, to name but a few. It's all the things that would have happened anyway if humans weren't around, all other things being equal.
The sceptics argument would be that natural variability trumps pretty much anything that man can do climatically, and while man does have an effect, it is far smaller than we are being told to believe. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWN3FHYkNnV3VBbmN3SlZob0piZktKODFQaU43aXJnMWhVU1JoWW9maFJtUTNhbnU4N3hzRXRMckZKVnF3SjdWeHJOZDJqMGZhYXN0THcwOTF1cTZmTFE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzNlppUWlMcFhDaGppbGNtOFltNmprOUNHSXVBVnE1TVdOeU1UREhFWjVQaEhQUlFKTFVpNHdSa3dNSjhrc1JmcUFaaU9SNHJRMUhOSHZha2lEQzZKX0UzNU5PcEhKSTUzakpxTk5MRHJwcTBkeXFlTDV0bS1kcUxNQkVyN2ZvX0VpV00welhpNjhFN1hYVXFHRGk4cER3emtFYlF1ZVExQU9QWFVpdUdXSTNJQmwwVGc0RUlKRS1jS0xFOURKVGp6Wi04c2Q2ZVJ4VFEzUi1RQWM1VmE5QT09 |
so...[data that 'AGW' stopped 10 years ago](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html) = 'shrieking deniers'?
i guess when the data no longer fit your pet theory yet you can't let go it's time to admit you belong to a religious faction rather than a scientific pursuit. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWZ3VyQ0xrNW5CUmdlRzhUTjBiZXVJZGo5TU1lcUQxUmJXbFRoaUtNampvRkJ2OERvWUdZa1FHZU5KMmV5VmVFelZXU3Z3SGNROHVvNXI4d1VDNVVvMkE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzdlpqVlZtemJiNkp1LVpta0w2eTdlRlZCeVFVNWNlcHpwSS1kMUdnX3B2RER3LUllUUoxSnkxdXNZcHgwWFB2M3lwdmlLeWJXVGUxVnpwaF8zWjMzNGlBNHR6OXdzNzQ2NDBFUTUtbU5hNVFZV2szR04zay1Pa3R5NjBwb2hjT1dXcGExZ3NKcEIzVU5HUVRDWVdyazd6YkZ0MU93VlFFQXR0aVEzT0tOVlV3MGhiYkM2ZjB6aklYaEdsbnlfUEZOQjJFanFuMzZWbUxxYUxLOUE0NEh1QT09 |
sure. but all your arguments are equally valid with regard to the opposite side of the debate as well.
except that the pro-AGW side has the backing of popular political opinion and government-sponsored funding. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWREdqVDhkRHB6OWFwUDRZbUZCMGY4NVo2NmVQd3dRVUVNZUNfaUlCa0E2Z2t0ZnNkZ2V2YWlnbEx2SEZtaXdmdS1IaDdvbC0wMVRkdGpoUXZaSEJaLVE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzd29yNGg4NVcxUFRlRl82b0F1Nm1YUC1QVlgzdTRwX3FvVExnUFhXN1hXZWRkUWk1eGtzNGFQVjRYTzB3dGJoZjlOT3dDTlBZZS04N0NuMXBMTFNtdE1UVTVEbVJwZUlDUlQxME1fVXN3dzFCczE1bkVFSG5ndE50ODNfY2NMZUl2NFZ3V1lURkRRZ2xGZkhIUGtXQ0p6NDdCaWtwU1NnX1FqTGp2RWRLTV91YWpqaUtjamloRUVyZUdEZnN1d2RrSGt6UVlWanRVSzJHTlNpTl8tLTdzUT09 |
> if you're trying to do a hatchet job on them
Please re-read my last paragraph.
I'd like to know more about the people who signed. I believe I have some legitimate questions about the *authority* we should imbue them with.
> I'm pretty sure that lots of them work for oil companies. What's your point?
Are they doing science which leads them to their conclusions, or are their conclusions foregone and self-serving? With the current evidence, I have no way of assessing that. That sucks.
*Trying* to be as dispassionate and unbiased as possible, I think I have legitimate questions. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWY1k4cEtpbklJSHgzZUpMeG8wNGY3VV9hVEJ0WjUwS2ZvRGY4UjVfcDk0YlZYM3gwOXpOeU16MElJajhTMU16R0M2SnQzd0NJbEszMWZvYXlLZy1Cc3c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzTl9jZGl6UHgzY0wzUGRWamdkVmM5ZWs2LUlGZXpfejJZRWVnQVVwcllqaENyMFl1NU5UYlJ6WENWNnNPWV9GNjQ2WnRyeUpMTkExbHlQY2FHY2tHTzN3WU9MS2pQLS1MaFI5bS1vNFR6TlhhOU00bzJCZFR1cWxSUDNMSUk4Wld2Vk9KeklKT09td1FsMlAxVVI0U0F5SXBzbFBJaGZnZ2V0TlRRZHNBQkFGZFdMRTJreFRGM05qZ0Vjbkc2Qnlnd3RMbmlIVkRvdHlNV2hpMDZRdWVJZz09 |
> 2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.
From the email contained in 1210341221.txt. Prof. Phil Jones is saying he has found away around the FOI. If this is not nefarious, we'll just have to agree that we have different definitions of the term. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWaUxfYld2WkpuSVZWQURULWt6WS1XelhaS001aGhEUlJUTjQwYW9IQk9SSWNjOGlWQzN2ZmFCWGlUd1pfX3Z0OHpmU0MtU0pTRDFKLWU0dWlkT0V5ZEE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzeTNRUlBOOU1HaFFubUxVc0RucC1xQzQxQUNiQmlWRXBPcTlrSGliYlBiQ1pKMF9TLXlUUnJtYTljWkZfcEJMcjBsWEdldVMwcEUwdGdPeUNwRUtwak1obkNNTE80ckhZOU1qekVKemFCa2JOZUFqREUyT3NmY2o4WVNIWlNjU19pMjA2Ymo0ZUc3V3NaRmZPU3YyUWw5c2kwczdrMHdMVlVzbzZrSUFNRVNGV1pUa1lSYktmb1YyTHpwR2dlQ3VvV2ZDWVJCOU05OTRicy03T01fNG45QT09 |
>What, precisely, are you doing? Attacking Hadley CRU, one of the thousands of messengers. Does it make you feel better?
Hadley CRU are not messengers. They are clearly *manufacturers*.
Does it make me feel better? Emotions are irrelevant because these are facts.
>Historically, CO2 changes follow temperature changes. That doesn't mean that temperature changes cannot follow CO2 changes. Consider a feedback loop, such that rising temperature causes rising CO2, causes rising temperature, causing rising CO2.
The feedback loop is logically fallacious, because it would imply that the very first uptick in temperature would be the beginning of an unimpeded growth in temperature until the Earth turned into a scorched ball.
But clearly upticks in temperature that cause an uptick in CO2 *has not* resulted in ever increasing temperatures. This is logic here.
Scientifically, it is a fact that many years ago, the Earth was much cooler than it is today, but CO2 concentrations were higher. There are many other published studies that do not show any causal connection between CO2 and Earth temperature.
CO2 simply isn't a major greenhouse gas. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor.
Richard Lindzen's recent work even shows that the Earth doesn't even contain all the heat that is sent by the Sun. When the Earth warms up, the warmer the Earth gets, the more heat is radiated out into space.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/motl-on-lindzens-latest.html
The only "science* that shows AGW are *computer models*, not reality. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWT21HT3h6Rkd6bHJYa3dRN2pLYzV0Zm54SmVLMWNSVzA1THdtZEpsc2x0ZG5iRFZnSkdTOEhpYnRTU3c5TjJIOGNqQ01qRGlLT2hZRm1EdnpvcE1KWXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzNF9nUmktTjU3alVwRHFxNjd0ZS1xcWlwYnFiZmNuQ2Y0dHR4dko5cjVUU09MT2F5amE3TVkxMkJGcm05LWJmYXVrLVlIWklaMFdYVnZ3UFBLcHFwNVdCMlFqVXMza0l6S2wtZ0hlcWtQVWtkSEJJNGpUMHBYRVJkQkp6dXZoczBCS3VHUHlPclRZM1Zfb1V5eTROb1hBMDEyREw1QjRFVmJrTXBlaEVnM1p3X0hrWmFpN3RSSmtfSmtwYXFJSXg3ejY4b3RTWVdQZS1QSDg2UDlkRDVuQT09 |
Not my conclusions. Steve McIntyre's conclusions.
He has been fighting to get the CRU to release their data for almost 10 years before one of the editors of the journal that Briffa published a paper in required him to release it.
Briffa released the data, McIntyre analyzed it, and that chart I linked to is what he found. His argument was that Briffa only included the tree ring data that produces the hockey stick, and he ignored the data that did not produce that result. McIntyre has posted his entire data set on his website so anyone can repeat the analysis.
Trust me, I am not just some radical right wing lunatic. I have seriously looked closely into this matter, and as far as my capabilities of analyzing data are concerned, there is no question that Briffa cherry picked data.
It's unfortunate that climateaudit.org is overloaded with traffic right now, because he explains it much better than I can. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWSjBQZVBRdlZsMzZRTVBsSFJyNEExSDhqQTdJbVlsVDNpXzBZby1BYjZWR2g3azJMTjNIVGdBVDZmS25DRVRrWGp0X3VlcWhSclVYdTNjcFZIdXZFTlE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzUDJaMG9tUkNpeXhGMXNmbXhxalB5RjNrYWxnUmhDc0xZVVduQ2NZUFBIdVlURmlZUnVVc09IYVFNUFAwc0ktTHlXQUlqcDRpS3Z6V2gzeldPc0k4Yl9Fbkdxa1pJdXhmb0RDS1hiX1FGXzRwSnJSRU1SRVlGTDBsbEM3bUxlNVN1WnVPZzIwVnlUV0t3dXlybHZVZ0JUam8wV2o0SThHdGtwVGI4MTlfSndMWXc2QU9lemVKalNicm8wakdudkhMdWdrWEhJSmt1bkFzU3lEcmxUczdjUT09 |
Sure. If we could say "volcano caused MWP, and here's the models that explain it," that would be one thing.
Currently, it sounds like the only explanation we have for MWP is "magic." lol. Right?
So, if there's a "magic," unexplained cause for MWP, which is *clearly not "man,"*, then it raises questions about concluding "man" is the cause for current warming.
It doesn't *disprove* anthropogenic warming, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. "Not-nature" is an extraordinary claim, especially when the same data point was observed WITH nature. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVC12QkRzRW1yZWY0NmtmZU5LVzFOUEJZRklLQlVHdEZrM19JV2RsRmQzaVA0UmZGMUIxME5lRnFJTFlUVzVDQkpLcVJSZ0E4bXRmYm80QTZiNkZPekE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzeXV6ZjhNcUdkZy0yWXB2OHJadjNYVUpkY2N1M2xrUXQ2YmQ4aXhGMWhGYlIwSEhXcU95ZzJRaFNOUEdDZlV5Sm8xb0ppX09YbDZzYUZMSXJkaDRGc2ZPaC0xVGJtajNieHJaNkhTVUxlc1JHbnZPdjdoaG1hM1dmbmREbXBYT240Q09ZZFJNS3NkWXRkcDZmcUZ0QlVpWFNOM1ZuQTZZcG9DcHlWdUVrTXBNYnJDQXlfYUNsQVBZSEM0bU9HakZEcTlrZENfalpQOFpzTFJETTN2TE4zZz09 |
Well, except that you *can* assess the authority of the "pro-AGW side," because you know who they are. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVG9FdVVVSDF4bUxJdV9BZzVaYk1TMEcwZEU5NERHUnYzbmRweUx0cVA2Vm5zcDVxRExQUUdXcC1rdVEtS1JhSzhPM3I4elVlTE5BTUF0MXRXdHFGeFE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzZW84cC1GLXlqUUl2UGY1M09ZRUJQRWJGUW9STUFlX2x0dmFjODlrMlNPSm5hckJKdGdLZTN2cTV5SV9PNHZnQS1BNmQzNFZiSGlfS3c3X29aSFVkSVVDSnl4SU1SVjJKc3JzNEQtNE5hSHhBMUlJeHNKMF96d0lkMDMyNFVDUnUwZDZJdVNFTW9SSzV2dXptTmtmN0V5R0k3c3NxdXVvNERuYUJjalZxaUNRano3U3A5czdBSlFZZWpxTTZJODNYbE1jZ2xLTVJVcU91Nmd4RTdPNDJ5UT09 |
FWIW, here's my layman's approach to bias:
No human is without biases. We all them - often unconsciously.
The best that can be expected is for humans to be upfront and acknowledge conditions which might cause them to be biased.
It's a bit of a paradox: acknowledging a basis for bias weakens the power of the bias to override one's logic.
In my view, those who claim to be completely unbiased are actually less credible. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWTG9ONTQyMktXVndCeThoNlYzTXdiMVY0SEc2SGdINk1paVpyeHh6WVdHQ1hUaDBkU1pzT1R3VkpGSUM5dWVYWW9kY1YyTHBWcFNGUmt4SGM5bnVoWGc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzanZUbF90MVN1VzBPQUFrUUFkRXl2bFhtNVVNajhnOUw1b09ad1k2MmNNRHEzYWpRUExCWVc3LTVpOXFNaTBzLW1QVEI2emF2eE5YT2tQVW1zcUU5dTYyVmIwdjBMdGJoRzN4enloRUdpeW5jYzRLYmRGMHJvclI1LUlyWERremlCTlhHOXdsdjM2U0xOU1NudEZnaU52WWRKY1VocWVSWjlRUU1MX1FMb1N2aXVYZ2Y4eFkzcnFReS1mMXI4THR2SHQtQmN3Si1uMTlfTldVcE4yV1pBUT09 |
Good to see you're still your deranged, paranoid self. I think you're still too late to stop our plans for global communist serfdom. You'll worship at the Altar of Gore yet, heretic!
Mwahahahahaaaaa! | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVlY5Q3htMEM5ZVpreHgwZk5Lb25pT1BwNXFtWW1uYmpBOGRZd2VDamk0dGp5VmMtZU9SUFJRRzdkZUNNaktzWlR5WlVBUVZDd203dWpRR3pId1VIa0E9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzRXFaX0Q0NFIwckIwSnFfQXE2bkhnbnVJVUNfdVBURW1nUG52QmNUU2s0Q0VRblZfTE1DdE9JdjMtTUhjMlNMNEZ3R2VHaEI2Y0hiVXNLYTdKSVN1a3NBV2VXM29QSmJONXVKVWp3RTZUSWVRUkQyb3ZRVE9JX0w1ajRWX2hzZ1BpRmVpWllFSklEbkFTaGxvbWtQWGVfSExaTjJ3RnpsMWxFaS1hMUxxTG1oUHI2QUZ2eWxsQmU2d3lxa1JjcW1uR21JNVdKbm8zLXB5SU94ZmFaZHdsUT09 |
how? are they on a list somewhere?
the average person (like in this thread) arguing for or against has not evaluated the authority of either side, but rather prefers to question or disparage the perceived authority of the opposite side.
the fact is, there are plenty of extremely well-qualified experts on both sides of the fence (as with just about every scientific dispute). | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWckxzSE85aFRuSkJQYTZDeDdQOHhBRFdfQnBOT0dpclB3NjlXNURpYkxsZ1pHZUNnYWdMYko4X1REY0gyd18zaHhuS1hJUzFKcUY0VzNIWWZIWDhhbVE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzaWdUSS1UcGJudmt0bHFURGVHMDhlRWRpLXdzcDNGV1BjR3hMS3ltOUVfM2s2dDVWRXJYNjhhZXJ6dWMzQ1o3cDFTd0dfRlkzM0NUeGdVVkNhc1BZcHJDd040dDJ6cFRTM21ZX2hiYmlmYTJKblJyS0NxLWxJTVQwbXhWWjVZaHlrMk92Y2RxZ09YZkJiSkE2dWdxVU9POVNxdVFUS1g3eXE0ZFowc2RCM3c5NjZOdWVnTEZHczBKcUVJZDJMMUZHNlJMLU1wcXZIcUhiTFpPOUxKa1BvUT09 |
He's talking about how to graph in a way that includes data that features a tree ring study that's considered to be wrong at one part ("the decline"). The copy paste and links are elsewhere in thread. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWQnhTblI0X0wyRkFoeUFqRm5hR0loNXE3MUZkXzM0S1I4WWU3U1FZckFWQ3BEVks1Q3hCX1lPcG1CX2x6aW5RM29kVnhSUWRjRHktYjY4WnpMYjQtOHc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzYS0xcTJvOWg0OFViUHd0TzRNNU80NndWMFVQcE1zNGtrajFKVHlfcXJjX1hBY29UUVJVVTdVZ1dBRVZjZHp3QXBHVVNFUmJQUDNReE5zRHEzTjJVMVpqWWdPbHV5RnVYamgySHNGQWg3XzhyZDNJa201Q1NJSFdTRlV6YklEd05tY1hfMHZtRlpvZmtob3htSWRGVllXX3J3YmUwalNnQmZIYVlzdkhuOVlsUnBXdENpeDVBeW1CTnBOUWFFYm14X3hHa2dQODJZczlPQTdneF9XNnRRUT09 |
I'm having problems deciphering your logic here. I don't remember saying "magic", just natural, what would happen anyway.
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof, so where's the proof that man is causing catastrophic climate change. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWU3p1dFg4U1I3WEpFOWtKTmgzc2RBbzY3N1VYWU56NE9jYzRXQVYwM3BRVzV1dzRfWXhCajI3Xy1CaXdTNjl2cTZCQUl1YnZqNHFLNm0zeHM4cWs4b2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzV3hCVi1qUHY1YzVJaHZIUkNQc2d3UWZuWHZEN0ZzdG05TlhEZ1ZKMXR2UERWYTVmZHBWMW9EM1JYa1BTbjZjV1F3VURUaHFhYmZ0a2lqTjNkaUlCMVpnMTFMZzVmNVBCczhiQlNYWWJLNldxdTRCaTByVEtVeEx0cFJJZmVPbThXZWgxYWE5YTdGTEVvOU5yTVBucnJkVGhyYUFuMXZ4bk5ENFFIVHRfN2hXM2Z3cEhoemQ4YUtmd256RE8yX1lFcnFnU2gwNVp6U0ZnN25lNWFkNlJZQT09 |
Climate change's reality has nothing to do with any of our beliefs. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWWjg5cWo2T1VIQjE0WktVcW5TdFNwUzNLOEhpSWtrTXF2YWpEWDVtOTNXN01SbnJnSDFHX3F2RW00OFJ2YVFwY1FvYk5vOFI0cThqblZvWHZrdzB5Y1E9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzcTRTX2UzUV9aX1Q0Sm91UGVMN2JjSjJXdFptbm1KUHpOdmFNaHliUFZwTU5pbjZpemxtTWU5ZnZ6d183Z2hBSU1VY3hsVjNocEdkVzlxa21JZ2p1UThBTldPSktFOTBLY3BmaXg3UGtpM2hvY0tiMTNMVDJyNVgzbUdyUFoxMjRaU1pkS2RYQWNfaTNSQWZ3aVFsWW5jT0RCMXl4a3lCa181cXNITlE1bXY4OWdOaG4tQU5sS2UxVWdwOV83MDJ5T0hQdkVmSloxbWpmN3ByRkcxZVNxZz09 |
[deleted] | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWM1VHNzdnWWJHQ1h3Smdzd18xM0Q5azBSRmtqdGxqd2N0TkpwMDB0anNwWkRDX2xEMzM4UXFSbXdSMEh6Y1pBd2JSODlzdzROM3pKSzh5OU5YQURtX0E9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzMUlmdzByRUwwSUhWeVlwOEhxN3lvU1N5cndac3N3ZFJpRVZpRVdJZWVOaUkzaVpDQk0xY3kwbUZTSHd4Qm9uUWFjd254Qk1EejdidzU4N3k2UWlMZWk1M0tnN2cwUTdEM0FjMmpqSWM3ZkhFWTFIZG9mZG1hdzJfdGZBUl9GY3RiaXA1STVLZkY0OGVRTnFOTUczM3Q5bjhORFF2NXEzdFE5X0RydXlPT3N5WUVLaENCSS12aV9GdHBjcFh4VU9YRUxyQmhOcWlOd1NDUUcyZ3dDRGNnZz09 |
Those ads are made by the tobacco companies. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWT0oyVm94cFZWVTJVcllhRGthd3dISV9mZ19DOHNkNWt5RTRXZ1gwT0l3V2ZpODZkYTlhSDNSSGVnaF9UOGw3R2NXRm4zU3BUM1FyTGw0MHc3YV9obUE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzelFkRFNWbkY5RmtvRXpWTVhKUXF6b0lxdXNtVWZfOHFkelVQcTY5RElNRlRsdHhPNVRObUw2bV91QVBrTUlqdHF5Y0lYYTNTUlA2TGlPV0xxNDJtSE5VVGIta25vX2F3UjZmTDRndFNoc1lNbDc3aGIxRGgyVjBSbGpzZUZnMUQ3SjZUWnhISDlfS0hVd1g4T2IxbnRaWDFIZkR2Vlp6WVFrZzY0RHdBZG01TFdEOU9Qa2c1WlpVMm1LX2MxTVdqMWFyOVR1OFpnampQNFBWdTRxcFVOUT09 |
Delingpole can cram it. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWUC1tVzZjR0JqUnZsc3ZCaXNuRTcyV2pyZmlRRG0wekxOYWg2cUR3bFpONWkyeFduZ0JGT3lmN1JkQjJlZnFrVXdNQjBSV2xSLVh3SXZHVFNnSXcxQUE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzV2hENV9BSDJidWozM3h4THRVR2ZPcDYwQWNIQXJndllCdnY3QS1XbXNzYzZWTnpTbVVndzQ1QVBDT2VDejZkek5jUzNzU1lpeFpEcGZFd2pZbW1aNTF0YVB6RmNSOEFjNlFXWWZ6VEt3cmFpcE5yNWd3RzVrNmNnaTZ5T1V1d2dVYmt3Z2pKUGtlVHdVVkVaU2JMRnFoWlNJZW0wSFpYN2U1QmRkaGFMaVl4d1FhRjNJZVd1M21fRGhyN21HT3lQU01USUNEeTlaRTF3TW5vRTVBTC1KQT09 |
I don't believe his goal is to provide clear conclusions, inasmuch as spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWNXdNdkZqbS1uZ29VTVpBdkZ4cjNJTVdUY1hzbF9ma1IzYUluYlY5T0NtcHZ4MTB4bC1ldXk3dmk4enJkSWZFN3BGQW4tMTlNV0RzTWIzeUItQVBVdVE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzVy01MEs0dkZpMVBpSGdlVGxSeG83TXJ6bENFVnhZZEN0SzRQMllJajI5Q3QwVDgzMTFwdFJtTXFXRkNDNncyRXBHMTdEd0xGUzd4X0tOOUNvNTBiOTVHQmxMckVzVDhzdWdHMUwxNGNvVzBJVXMtVnItdTQ0ZWdnVDM1NGk4Y01tLXlGVVVyMUxKTHgycDlUckNzbTBpZWZ0NmQ4RTFrRkpqbDFHVVM1WFoxTUpMMEtJM3BqcGR2NFl5ak1PTkpBWWxzWWRwWjRKV3Ywc3lJdDJHeVJDdz09 |
The fact that Mr. Jones apparently hates spending time packaging data for people who will then use it out of context and without understanding against him, doesn't prove nefarious intent. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWNlFUcHZORy1qdW50ZnpNTllUQ0VtVW5zXzZkU0FZT0JXbTczZjJLTUF4MDhRTVlfOUFNbzZtbmVxSXBvN0dJcmtvVzhHVVNNNjZMY0NZRW5oWVJtS2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzMWZsSjBFQ0haVGFZWTNidEdtNmZHOHVKZ1JXWjZtMUpiRWZMUmlKSXh1Q1hEamdPa1l6QTJQd3RZdHprQVNfbjlOako2ZndKZ1I1V1N1cUY0TlpybjBKMVdEdF9VUkJRd3Y5bjVEQjNRSlI5WkdKU0QwdTFmNG8zeGUtM0xPbE9SZTdrM0tRYUZzRHBFaEtRckk3Zjh2eWNJNmkzcU53ZFdmaVBucHQ2VEFFUVdya2NZc0hoQXFEcW5rMHQ2cmY5Z2xsenlyV3hvZW9uVlZ4SEV1ZlhwQT09 |
The lack of terrestrial warming doesn't imply lack of climate change. The process is one of negative feedback cycles, and apparently one of them is running stronger at this point.
Sort of like ice cubes in a soda. The fact that the soda doesn't increase in temperature as long as the ice is melting does not mean that heat is not increasing within the system. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWRXd0UXNlSmE0WndYM01paDV1cmJZdThsTUVEYkYtYjAyX0h0WkJuQmxna1FKeVoxdWdsd0RxX195aHBMc3ZFTG1nQmNLTVJsTWNjVFFILU03b3hfUkE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzWFVyX2ZqX2hVVXh0Q0ZpUC1CdU81MVdKa3BlMlA3TGgwNnZZeGlXbzduUkptWmV2bW5rQzhaSWRGVUFLNGxpeWxYbllLREZsbmxjaWhMRjBkNVhfcEtxT19CeW1yalZXQ2Z1cEtxZTN2R3QwQUdHQXg1MzU4V0s5X1lmMkJTSk9UTHd3a2hGNUpXZ1ROYTZySTFOREQzaF9mMHdLRmxsbk50Y2N0bHhZeUkyVHh2NlVKOTdyVHA5Tk9RamxhVVpBUDZib1o3WDRMZ2M1S29vSWdCcFlKdz09 |
Thanks for contributing. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWZkVZYjRkMWlUUmhNVmFHVmpPd3kxRFM2VkZWWUFGNG0yMkJvUi1SdV9rRTczd2VjYTJ0S1RQb2phWnBDUlA2TzZNR29aNFpwUnp2ZWpyTGhmdVFfemc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzOGkzT3pSSDB5OEhvdm1tRUJxX0hnSVVaNDh6WmVWdThLME1LdHNQNzJmTGFrWE90YXdhUGlERzN3ZmZGM25XUzdGX0prUWt3NWc1UDJ5QXVjeWxpUHJyUmg2OHFBZ3dWTEFubWx0VW1KSi1jOUhadDVkeFp1Sl9PLTRvalpNTVBBVEJkMlZiVENlZ1hFVlE0dThHVVQ2NGVtTGd1UTE1NW1sdUpnNnV3VjlUUzlOVkhIZ296REw2MnhFeHhBUVFsUEFzNnZGa1IxSE5acXBwVy1BOE51Zz09 |
> They are clearly manufacturers.
You haven't *shown* that.
> The feedback loop is logically fallacious, because it would imply that the very first uptick in temperature would be the beginning of an unimpeded growth in temperature until the Earth turned into a scorched ball.
Are you familiar with control systems? They're ridiculously finicky, because there are first-order, second-order, etc. effects. Some amplify, some dampen. You're presuming linear relationships, and concluding that therefore the theory of a presence of a second-order effect *cannot exist*.
> but CO2 concentrations were higher
Can you show an alternate to [this graph](http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/science/~/media/Images/science/question3.ashx?w=636&h=357&as=1) I find graphs like this all over, but none that show that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher. I ask out of *base ignorance.*
> The only "science* that shows AGW are computer models, not reality.
There is science that shows Global Warming.
There is a theory that this time, it's anthropogenic, and yes there are models that show a discrepancy between observed phenomena, without accounting for human activity.
It's like showing a curved path for an iron marble, and showing that Newtonian physics alone cannot account for its path - that the strong magnet nearby must be exerting force. The Newtonian model clearly shows a straight line is what's expected. Without the theory of electro-magnetism, you couldn't explain the curved path.
Models are just math that fit data. *computer models* are just models that are executed by a computer, probably too complicated to do by hand. You seem to think they are inherently without merit. Can you do the Navier-Stokes equation in your head? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWajBUX3NOU0taX2wta2gyN3NEQzRfV1FxQk1vWmFOWXFVN21WUy01Rkhqd0cxRW9Hel8tbmYtckZhMlNpWUpUWkRURnVsemE1OElaSTlpR1I0SmsxWUE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzVmZ1U1lFR1huRTBHNDhQNjdBREVCOHF3YXZDV1dvdXlIOHJoX3RVRlJpek14Ry1QQ2lBYUY0LVYzQWpoZzU2RUhCR2VEQTJoMzFyTnJrSlVQM0VySC1wdE5oMnEyNnY3Qkp2T2VSQ09HS0V2M25JQ0xMbnJFZ1lHeWVFZHNaOXltbENoa0xjUUtkMHVrSk9zV2NQSTNtN2t1aXpEejJsNkVsY1VuT0ZHay1zeVVDODYyVzJaVXBxRF9JbUF0ZG43bXhBbDdJV2RLbDkzeGNaZ3owRGkyZz09 |
Finally, you might have something. Except we'll need more context and even if it were true, there's still a mountain of evidence showing global warming is happening. But if there was a corruption of the FOI process then that would I think be unlawful to those involved. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWTThsMEZTRDktZVBkUGIxU2pudmRvR0JWUHEtMTl4TE5yYVM5eHBjaE4xQ1N0ZWR1UV9iRU1vZVo5dGRNT0xsTktiTnVpYzNielVlWG1hcGpSdEhKWlE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzV0NpUlU2UENxREtqeFEtU0cwTmV4anR1RWZsR0lXVjB1Y3dQS0xxOUhZTFhaWGw3S3pqajRpRmJZcmtFVFA2bTRzdjkwS2dmcWJpbW5yUUhqeDJVMDA3YUhDeG14a3FhMno5cERjSlZ3a24tRUE0VHRtR1pJSlhkcEFabHZyZWVEUG9vNU9GcGpWSFU3VG1WYjZyc1BXMEcwRUtpUVMyTDNmQUswTXZXUTg2OFBZZjBNdWFsUloxNW43cmxidnduUFBKNTdNSk11eVNQdFBKQ3phYU5XZz09 |
I know this is cheap, but I TOLD you so ;) http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/a5nh1/climate_change_has_been_canceled_so_could_you/ | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWNUVuRWV0dzUwRnUwQU5GdGhFdXU0eFA3eXhSLV9pdWl3NTBWMFZyb3NpWmp3bHVtczRQNnNJY25DQTNOODR5a0lMZ2ZDYmRmcFdWR3lKeTc0aVdLWmc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzS0h3TG5hQzItSEF0QnI0Y0NMMGQwWTFxMTI1aXVRdkhuajZNbFQ2Sk9OTkU0aUstY1JNTDlaOUQ1YzRwZ1BPVzc4NUxVS1FkWnc3R01ZS0JNeHRVeEpxUlpzZVpBTm5sTGh1VzE5bFNrWi1jNFc5Um5JTW9fM0ZTUmNHaG9CY00zY1ZqbG1GbWY4ZU11cFlUNGlIbkJ5Q1Z1NG40Si1HVW96MWpaSENIMmFjcmlZOS1OS3VFRnprUVh1b0dtX3paOFY3SUhVenV3N0JfNk5GQjlzam15UT09 |
Sage_Advice put "scientist" in quotes.
If he has a valid criticism of their methods, he should state it.
The sarcasm is not constructive, and it actually hurts his argument. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWemFLSF9USWNBTVlMcjI5cGJOczdYZS1HVGNhSWNYcWlQWGdidU1IUFhKeFUyMjdnQVZaOFhzbmd2UDZpVFAtQXFiQWFvY3ptQktyVDVDdHlGMngzTmc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzYjZNLWlYZEhKUVMzWm9lZ3A2a19hMlY2Y0JkUDlheW5mTUhpTGtjYlNxdnNyTHB4eGdGbTl5VzJpMjFxQkVqQWFtb2p4LVZQSjN3WjNzTzlTel9FVTZGNDk0TzNFeGUwVjBWLWd3c1lBQ0liLVZzSTktUnA0RFl0VFlnVHRqdktWZGo2VVNQTi1UUnhmRS1KTENkUy1PNmNZcW03NEg2NEl5S19UclptQzRXU3NsWkUwN3R2ZVNmRTNyZ1NHdGNweWx5VjBwdHlrSTBfcVlkeFFXYnExQT09 |
At different scales, yeah they do.
Newtonian Physics state that an object at rest will tend to stay at rest, unless acted upon by a force.
You can't make an electron stay still, not without exerting force on it. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWb2gwdXlUdDNjclExV1VBTGpzaFRmNzF1dFZqc0YyNDBlY2JKTEhVZ21CZllNV2dsZUU4amFkMTc3WFVUd0JtbkV0dWpxbERJRWlUVGtrRGNOLWxON2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzRVVjX1U5M0ZKSkdnODNvZVpJOXJ6ZGxQRVM4Tkc0QW9aVEJqcWZSVGE0VG9UbXNFdGlHNjhsdFZ0UFMwSHlSZXBPczAzYUV3NHNUSjRLbXUtQlVKcXc1bk5mWldWcWtHSzRraURBczRnZGxTZG96Rk1tbFhpVldETmRpTUpIZDFaZi1UVXNDVkxpeGlPT3ZDc1lYYllHUkFqeXhJR2ZhV2hRb3ZudERCTWRnbHZEdFZTN1VXakZKelRXTldic01DdHZDdHpIajFRT21BWkFOcmlEMGNkQT09 |
Yeah, you didn't say "magic."
I'm restating. "Active listening" and all that.
Until there's a natural explanation for MWP, we can't claim that mankind is *the only possible explanation* for current warming. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWX1l3QVFERkhsRFVQWWRyWkxiTFlaaGN0RmdFS05qaDFHQ3NTeVA5STRzSkZycW93UjdPbzR3TElIU0lZN2RhcEpSc2pJWVU1dmpkdnFvQU9LLUppYXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzV3AxejV5TmJTNDI2bFBsR2dKWEVRUUhuU0Rsb2V5NFFFVUEwSnBzN2pfUlRldGwySkxBUnktMkw5LWt6RUlvUV9pa1VTcE50SGFLX2FCZnVFNURoWEZOUy1nRE51YW16YnlaWU16YzhvaGNvR1Y4Z09DVjNJWEpLNUJPV2xPN0xWaUFZazR1enVtNXB0N0xvZm9OUm1UR2x6VHB2R3hNdFpwMFI5QmlWYTBWdS1ZV2lrYUVxT0dVRHUxYUVwUVZSWmF4YmYtdS1OejlmT3V6cGdIQ1U3Zz09 |
> how? are they on a list somewhere?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
And yes, that doesn't get you all the way down to names.
My point was merely that, in order to be on my list, the scientists have to be a member of those agencies.
In order to be on the list you posted... You need no qualifications what-so-ever. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWS3BFbkM0d3k2ME9sNzJQZUpCb2VveVJXb1ZYN2N4VlhyQTRFRWNIQ1JIamg1YWlucVVHUkV2a08tV25lRnNyVFAwVjVSMjd4Wm1vYmpCdWhSZEJzVmc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzY1FhSG4tM2dvUDFiZm9iY2ZkZVV0aEg3T050VU93SUxKQUw4V3BhNXhYblFOYW1nWGhTLXM0eGZCdDV6ODY2dDRpNHdJUEwtdllzRzRqVWJCY1dUbGJjUERQWTJ3RGw0VEtDQXR4cEg3VUxVYnRtY0dNZXFpeU5xQkhoLVhGc2EwTnFTTUdMTkhGM2tTMUVGemtFRXc3eDd4MmlQNGctYi1FYlVXbGU5QVE0ZkR0UEZSN3dhS3RKQmJ4VFRsOC1MY3Ewd2RCQ0hBQXBKMm5adHRQd292QT09 |
Have you looked at some of those PDFs in the file?
Advocacy of certain scientific outcomes is not indicative of a good "scientist".
| r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVVZUdHZDajJBdDY2SFZzSmxZb3pZdVAtTWlWd3lwS0EtM3FpaDRHY3NId1pUbWNKa3BUcnNIcDctUlN2TE9kTzc5UkFKZ21JYkZQdDNEWkp4ZFh5ZFE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzbGhsV183UmlrSktxU0ZYaldaREVjZE50YmIyLXJKR2dBQ3lzekFGbDdpdnltX2N4Nl9tY05oT2RxbzJOTEpDWW83dmE1dXk0YXN1eFNKbnZsQlN4SFZlX3ViSXNtV21fZE93MXpkSTBERWozd2EtQ29pLWxJNFFOSW12aDVCVjZJekhSV28wRl9qeEZhN3BTTmowVE54djdEcld3Nlh6a3Z0LTNUeVcwNkJRbWFzY18tZS1MVmJtbjVwMWpYNUZQYjlObHhIZ0tEeW44c2NCRDJCWUg4dz09 |
Thanks for the explanation. Upvoted.
I agree, cherry-picking is dumb.
If you can't explain some of the data, you can't use some of the rest of it as a strong argument in your favor. Better to not use any of the data, and then go out of your way to state that you haven't yet explained the parts of it that seem to disagree with you. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWZnMwNFZBYTNmX1A1a3V6alI5cFNicTh1Nko2emt5US1FelN3ZFloZEtiVzJrWWdRVUllR29NZnYwbzNrSjZ3Rk1CcUpFaUpsYmQtYjZUN2cwRWxqRFE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzb3kxcmRXemhXa0tYWTYwbkFPWVEwSG9tak53UlVvT3JGRmMzZGQwMjcxaWNOd3dKWlRIMk8wVXZoV1RUQmR4OGNiNFgxOFZ6aklwWVpxbndHNFZTUUFBUTVZZEFnZWFIWndybTd4RGRJT2RpdlNFQkRaTDBBU2Y0bVk0RG9OZnFxZ0ZDRFVBSW1BZFAtOTBpQ3BBZlF5QjJ2cThnSGZKT0d3ZmxqQVQzcmtUS3EtMGl2Nms0bVk4MkpNNFkyOXljdlFBY3o5SjFWaXd1OTdQRjREeGROQT09 |
I haven't. Can you share anything that you found particularly critical of their methods?
I don't disagree with your last statement, but, if a peer found that the speed of light was 80 mph, I would be totally within rights to advocate that he redo his experiments, to achieve an outcome more in line with the best understanding. Or to try to explain his *completely unexpected* results. Right? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVXg5NjFjXzVyUElyRUpoNDNlNkFuLWRwWHN0SThOdWVQU1VqeXNOaEs3NUwzRzVsNjNZSGdReVZwU0JMMFN2blpHb0NvV0NYalItX1AzM1N2dzNvenc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzVV9ZY0ZIcGtSY2JoZkJxSUt0X3ExeHZuMzFHYm5wWExMTEh2ejN1aE1wSE5qUWFBLS1ZVWNPZnBNMXNRazNGOHBSLXFocENnOWZCNTdXMERNRVNIMUljTHFWeTJWNkViQW5SN3RfOEx2QjBlUG13cVRXUkFYQkNzRU50RlpYMFRkcHF5dDhZVlFSUGNRMmJtVGhEaVJiWU93bzVWWVVIblZIOWxfSW9CZzBnMUR3VFM5RzRvejdpQ1FOWHV5VVdpbDNXbU82OVJfTjF2RGZFaFBmV2dGUT09 |
Good post. I'd be very curious to see a refutation of that article. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWNUJyZ2VWWVdkUTA5MUpVak5IcjVyUkFKRTMyR0JuV2lhbGtyYzRrNnRjc0xxcGJzUDZEa1lNOE5UczBPWklUTEQzcVc1VGlZUUJSckZsbnVqRTFkamc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzaldxUDlvcmJuNVQyNnZpcnRjc1N3ZkNZb1FnRUhsZzlxVm9ZZG5Wd2tJajdLMm5HMGZyTXZfSVZndDVlYTZrMDM3OUhRQ3llVlhoeUc1THZ5aE04ekRDMjdpbzJtTzNsbHpqajlEUjR2Q3pkQzRCWTRpYlFidVEyUFVEZWREVFVMTVEwNHNfZVlHLVVLQ2tJUE5KQUZuVDk4VXRjeFBNMFc0ekJ4bXkxd2NtTncyNUZKOE1qd3V5R1RXRGhiQVY3RVdsbjBWV2I1TEhKQjhUVjZNalBHdz09 |
>You haven't shown that.
The emails *show* it.
>Are you familiar with control systems? They're ridiculously finicky, because there are first-order, second-order, etc. effects. Some amplify, some dampen. You're presuming linear relationships, and concluding that therefore the theory of a presence of a second-order effect cannot exist.
I am not presuming a linear relationship at all. Those who purport the "feedback loop" doctrine are the ones who are assuming a linear relationship.
You said:
"Consider a feedback loop, such that rising temperature causes rising CO2, causes rising temperature, causing rising CO2."
That is a linear statement.
Is it not?
It presumes that CO2 is the only driver of temperature. Is that what you mean by linear? Or do you mean that a specific percentage of CO2 increase will have a specific percentage of temperature increase?
Either way, it matters not whether or not it is linear. The feedback loop implies a scorched Earth is inevitable.
>Can you show an alternate to this graph I find graphs like this all over, but none that show that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher. I ask out of base ignorance.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. **The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.**"
"The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, **the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.** According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
>There is science that shows Global Warming.
Yes, absolutely.
| r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWM2c3dk93ZzNCMTV0bXc1SVd1Uklmci1vb3c0QnFSLXNTdkg4UlFjYk5oWFJNUTFUTTA1TlNoRzFjYW1KdU1rRDJXT21ZMWZqbFUxbUJ0b2tNOWcyd2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzQ1VSYXk3VVhsZlJnSFFCaVhvSGFvVzk1LTNrdEZQV0FPTWNkbWktNUVJMTRlNXhNeUt3VnpKM1ZuRjhLSm1CT3IzdFlHOGpoUnpzbjh4eWtyUk9UNThyVmNtbzFwV1dXbHoyS2EzNFBWaDFoRzJoRFhlZk80UWttSGpkZ080ZFBmQWlHNGo1Nm9wVU0zOGRIRFAxUmhOY2hVMVRvckFYYXdSYk9Tbks2TG1YNFJGRkdtT01JRTJtNW91Tjd1bUlxRHhxenhoRXJnc0RwOHFjYXJMVlJRUT09 |
This journalist has a degree in English, yet thinks he knows better than the vast majority of scientists who have ever worked on this subject. His lack of understanding of how scientists work and communicate, and that mistakes can be made innocently, is breathtaking.
This article is shockingly poor. He claims, without proof, this uncovers some vast conspiracy (having briefly studied the data myself while studying for a physics degree, I must be part of this conspiracy. Huh, noone told me). In the comments he claims to have the "weight of evidence on [his] side", again without presenting any evidence that counters the vast weight of evidence FOR human caused climate change.
How can someone with no scientific background and training think he understands this topic well enough to claim that the vast majority of all scientists are not only wrong, but lying. That this man is calling tens of thousands of scientists liars and not being sued for slander is in itself an outrage. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWOGFJN3ZaMmMwcFRQaGcyd2c0RUZicVU4YkVmNS1Gc0x5czZwVm5md3lEN3JFX1B1ZVVWY0RGeTJNcEV3MjlqNDdxVDNzb3RyVjAtZDd5R3BPRWc2OXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzT3JfS01UQ19WMl9EclZyT2VWOWRpWm9GalhzVlp6WnBlUmFsWVBiaWxxRnZEY09rVnJlVlpFZ2FDMmc4LVV1bFpVQl9rb2pZSlpwd21HTVI3cGhscFpCbVZyVHZmLWxHa1JrNHFqRDB5MlRJdnVKTXFNWVdjeEJLbkdzVlRQc1BrZU1VRmFZZ1poNi0zUE43Q3pWVTVlaEVOeFFwc1hRS20yZ0FHQi1zOFhUdjBwamRwbHduYVF5T2V5djJnUnB5a1lJWWFEZ1YtX0pQUFRlVVMwWXBmdz09 |
> The emails show it.
That's your conclusion. Feel free to post evidence, and we can discuss it. Some of your evidence has been cleanly refuted already, like the bit about "adding the numbers."
> "Consider a feedback loop, such that rising temperature causes rising CO2, causes rising temperature, causing rising CO2." That is a linear statement.
No, it's not. "rising temperatures causes rising CO2" shows that there is a positive relationship, it doesn't say anything about whether it's linear, geometric, exponential, sinusoidal, etc.
Thanks for the graph. I do have a question, though. The graph is in ppm, not in absolute amounts. Other gases have been increasing, which would lead to a decrease in ppm, even if the absolute amount increased. If the theory is that the relative amount of CO2 is the only factor in causing warming, then you are right. But if the theory allows that the absolute amount of CO2 also has an effect, then you could be at least partially wrong. I don't know. If the graph showed absolute amount, too, we might have a better idea.
> Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
No one disagrees with that. You're quoting it as though the author thinks they do. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVHhyckVBMXZwMlNqNThVOVBGelFzdVNaczU0VWI4NWl0RHlEYzZtbVdNeVpEY2ZRanZhU0N1YWRpT2w4cGY3MUZjYmR3WFlVZjZEX2Zzc0RHT3AtSlE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzRWNSbzh2TXlsRXNxQlVFTTlFSFg2MXlFczJWMnA3aDhSY213dWlCOExPVE54VE51NGh6ekNTeWJkZ19mYUhQWmNlb3Q4b3hSVkVKM0VtWlFQVzlYYktzQk1YaTA0MUNDYk53QmxGS0pRRHNfcnU3bVVfWXNvdTUtel83TWxCZ0dvbEdjanRoMllDcGQ2TkRDZWVFN09TNld6MjVRYXhnSWZNb215NFRmSzJ2c1NDSzRieEczVVdselhNSDhOOEo1WFhUeDJPUThwanhqZlZWWjJqVjhIZz09 |
You're quite correct. While the rate of warming has slowed likely due to natural variation, this decade remains the hottest on record. No one ever said climate change will be linear | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWbUllWm0xWEdRY2ppQ3JXV2NrZi0yMWVNUkZuc2FXR0IzeVFfVkdKLWsta0ZEZWxrbHFmVWs0TDdEUEhyOFZ4ay1QdGZickhHampsUU0xUXlGUU8yQ1E9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzLW9SYk9qeG9pOGV4R1dhV091by1DU0VzbzFwN2lXRGFncnBzakNabmY4WGFTZzJqTzNLQjNCQ3ZnRjR5SHRRWEE2a0RGUUtlOFB1UG1CQ3pUdHVBVTVzRWtHRi1DRWFOSjVaRmxTRUdfbFZSNlRSamxTeUp5TFROT3dUTUc0bmpzN0hpeVJULXZ1M1FZczlpQXBna01KZmszSDNMQWpDRWFkek0xeXlnYllhTU5sdnIwT1FHc0dDc2p3UzZTaVNGZEZrQ2dYaGtTLXliMkx2RUdweXFGdz09 |
> "Consider a feedback loop, such that rising temperature causes rising
> CO2, causes rising temperature, causing rising CO2."
>
> That is a linear statement.
*boom*, there goes your credibility. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWQUpOVlc1RDNLOU93eTVyVUJGc0xpUmdJblNOUFlrckwyMHYwaWNhZnV1M2Y4ZzdPVllRVF9ydVZBMVZZcWNCTjJBSWlKRkJNWFhZTlNsUE1nZURLVEE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzWDV6aENyMHFLdFY2aFRiWThBSXNUd2FVcWs5bnQ0RldYZkNmeTN2VGNrWEs3blN5a2RVaTZlcVZEZWZiYjhfSXVfdkJ0b2dQZXQ2ZlN1OVF5TDhzUEtITmJZVDRocGtJM1QzS3B3WUxIM3I4Q3UtUVRqRFJEZWw3V2RqeXQ4cjB6RnUyRlJVQmNvb3d4VXQwSUZ6VTQ4dUhJWkwzNFNLbm0tUDNFcld6a1dBRFYxdGhUUUtCaDBuRm1HQU9SZ1h3dU9Uazl3QUhTckxsUnRJUnVJdkF0dz09 |
Now you're just quibbling. The point is to a fantastic degree within the bounds of usual experience Newton and Einstein agree. In the same way that we largely expect future climate research to bolster the essential current understanding that human hydrocarbon use is having significant deleterious effects on the global climate. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWa2J1REk2VngtRUVMLVV6Q1hVTE1mN05TYXNEMk5ZckxIZDdXVDBDLXBvSnZPUlhFdUZ2cGVzUUFvWXdIZWpuSlpzTGNkaTZxem9LR0hEbWh2UzdnMEE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzVWNvVWFFSllrTlpmWklOakQtYUl6U1NxYmhZN0FkWHN5NFNjdHo5UVA4cnVYbkdWdGVYeEtIRzN4UGJsT0lqM0ZncHRlNlBvU2hqU1FUMGwwZ1RxeHBsVGtTMnVOckRIdlA2LVRiYkh2NHNZdThhdThZeFZFa1BTTFJMYkhFbUpmYW1MVFRWZU56dVJuc0xicXZOQW04VmRnbE9YUTRoMHlBbXVMZXFmOWpVUEdOb2ZKbktybTI3d1pRSldETG13WGp2NTMxeDdHYnd4RVA2eDZDM0hnZz09 |
[deleted] | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWQ19TdEwwR2RJdlE2Y1RzdTBrSWFfZW5ad1ptaE1JWUJVSXhOaTFybWo5anFKSGVQYmtBTUhqQ0Q4YU8yWng3TWVXbGwzc2Jlak10ZFVpeFo4QV9Pdmc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzQkFwckRycWxPZ1h3M1JOOGFkQ3dEcXU0SE1EWnRWVGZHVmJ5Z19XdHZyeHRvWk52YVA2aWxTYVU3c1VzVmZPamZFZ056MUF1Y1EyRWlNM2puRlR1aml0N2ZxMTdBV1N4ekJYYlFXWmVpNmx4d1ZaZTBpZmtfVUVkVE9HYTdYTVNlLXdQMHpJbDYyZmxidVF3ZzRwQ3hsb2YzYzVoclZiM3g4WlhFcU9GNHI3Z0JFN2JXMEJUTXBIR2NoX3R5aFVFSXRLSEc3YzNJeE5JRjJpcl9EbGtZUT09 |
You're trolling. Go read some climate science. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWWUUyM2tXZVlxOXVPRkNNQ0J6dHNydE1JWE5ZSDVhLWh5ZVZzcTkyUEdyUl9wcTdGTmRzekFLLUV0VGN2a0dkUnZrU2dYVWJUcU81ck4waWNmdUx4REE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzdHh3RGpIMHVqa1lQNVlTdXF1ZjlRQWJfX3RDWWpubF94VHVsNDZRMENUMlkyZjdROVl1ZXJEZE5SWEtMQ3RLcFN1dzE5UlN3YXpLOU5Wc2o5SUhaR3Zkc2hvb1pVbUxBaVVRVGZpT29xQlgxb0dHWkRmbjZHSXltZU1nZjA5RU1kQ1hFQXhIVXNYNldnZmpNcWZmYmFSUUViWFpmN19JYVcyNk5IM3JPd1U5Uko0akFHck1lclNHdjgtUHVmem1RRDBMUVpZYnpzVXZnNjl3UzcyMjVjdz09 |
But ask yourself why he might be doing that, and you begin to understand what's going on ...
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459 | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWNjZraTF0MGFQTkVPcEwwTGtTcFZnQUFTRlVmekhVVGFJYlBtd1o0S0tLSlBqLW44YWRPcXJxYWhMZFVQWmpUU2pNeE1xSkF0VXBLVDQ2a1I0UXVGM2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzaUFDelltOE9abXd1UnZJNFduUXB1Q1dsdW1CRm9OR1E1X3A5Rlp1MUJiUEk4WGRsbDRYempXd2tYR1l4VmMtUjNHS3R2dDBlbFpHdjJZdXhPaVY2TTNiemxobEktRVdMLWFwNFNZbW5pN0cxOGhMZmd4Rm91MWpzLW56eTIwOHJHZXBZcFlhVFpsMThnTjIwcnhYOXVOVXhpZ1BoU212SGdCdjI2Z01fYllybG94Y3R0aFVGajhpMnNsdDlSWjlHRVJvWGtYQW9vZ0JkN3J2ZlMxalpBdz09 |
That's the way the science is: long, tall and totally convincing. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWdkNXWXpPRnJzNDJjVnRQd0drVmdQM0E2dTRFa25MVGRSQlFqd0txaERUSzBQTzhGRlptRzZiV29JMjBTUHlldFpVTkVOaW1lWkNrVjFGb25veGNBeWc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzN0ZxaTg1ejhnZElrbXkwdUN1WXlxS3MwRjQyS0U1LUJlVWxhNkh0ZWZZUldnVjlpRHRTclQzZGxIbUJYN242VVJld1ZqdmRFa3ZGaFh4eE1QRVVqdVlBd0RqWlRzaWd1NFU0SzBKZmlMRzEtTG1XV0RGQzh6VkxxVXV6cEVWd21USmF1dXNUZGQwVHpFMmtBWVM3eHRVWG5VSldvUWMxS2UyRl9yclRRYXk0eUNwdEFNM2tYaXB2ZzBFTUk5djNNNXFpVjNFT3F4Sk02eVZWUkk5ODd6Zz09 |
ALL of quantum mechanics is quibbling.
Newtonian physics is not a FACT. It is correct at the scales we experience, if you incorporate electro-magnetism.
That's why we handed out awards to all those guys who worked on electro-magnetism, quantum mechanics, and relativity. We had a party and everything. People got all dressed up.
> In the same way that we largely expect future climate research to bolster the essential current understanding that human hydrocarbon use is having significant deleterious effects on the global climate.
I don't at all disagree. You can't in one breath invoke science, and in the second breath say "FACT."
Unfortunately, a lot of people think this is a weakness of science. Actually, it's the **greatest strength** of science.
Everyone should weight the THEORIES of science a hell of a lot more than they weight the "FACTS" of non-science. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWY0RkN1BfVC1jUzE5cmNRQi1VNHhYWjNpTkRxc1VrN3V5WU9ZNWlDOXQ5UkdCcTV3OGdBal93V09DU0pGNkpaRll3WERhMHBzNWlRZ0hWcG1wUk8wcFE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzaEZKcWRpcm5XV0lKR0NMeUdqRGg5MndZeEhONUxaZTRBcnFheG5UeF9JdmxDRlFtNHBmeExRUE96U1JXa2xCNkFUY1VlWVh0UDJuaktoNFdUdXV5UFNCdUJRZTRhZXdVQVlvY3pDQWx0SWhRY29kSHd4OERjRWN6LXlDMmVWV05nS2dWR2hqd1dHYk94eGNLby04MDl4SlNRMUNQYmFCQkYzTlo5M1VWckZ6NEpRUDl2SUl3bHdKMEpWeVl3OWVPSlVyXzg3SEN2WWN5TDBtVFl4V21ndz09 |
> When there's an accusation that someone is putting their thumb on the scale, it has to be responded to.
There are *always* accusations of that happening whenever science challenges the beliefs or *needs* of a group. Nothing challenges the needs and desires of so many people as global warming - of course people throw out accusations of deceit. We can all make accusations. The key point is that none of these accusations stand up to any critical analysis. The Deniers have no evidence of systemic dishonesty. They have no *science*. They have nothing other than accusations. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWcVNHYlU4bFZJUWRISk1WQk1xWnpqNU1MV21pVlozY1dKel96RlhPWmNkWXVhRmxlc2Etc0pzLWVvYjBFUUdHTUhZSmhjc0VHSTFkUUpWZW5mUU53a3c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzbTJHOU9GWHJYYmV6QUNNanZmemdZaVItc0dQVEs2VjNZNl9WQTBFblpUNFRXUmlZclJMLXl4d1g0dzNOaFhiZ1B1dGl0UG1FUEFadnQwakdnSGZQcmxWcUJZSkNXS2ZBcE5sSHN3VXV6SEN6V2k5Wmw3WGN4MTRtWU5HQmVDQlUyM0h3eVcxeGRTa3VYX1lVRmxkcEJGQ2lhZmZuRDFMekMxMHZCUFNkSjVxbzNyaUExeGFyaFk5Rl9LYXpjQnFKcVZvVGdPOWtseUlwVmVSRHVEYkdUZz09 |
"megabites"? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWMVZPZFctZkJWYkpnY1pkd29nZE1UWkJIN3VSNVZCRkRSZGJaZTAydVpjUVZGRFpBcmRGT0ZQc1plMnJvQUVHdE5IMkE2VndJQVVWTmZuYXBkUWFpUUE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzNmpzMHFEVVBlaFlpSXcyMFJqa2pzU2d3aVFrQ0hzVTJrdGNraG9hREpTOFRXRllqMkhVRmYyUVAzeVl4NXZRRXNzS3N1Ykd5VUZDZWxsX09DVU9DV0RITFZvSmFxRHl5MEg1ZnFiTUJTZEdqOTJCWlpTWnVmZmlfVllFcGhfQy1INzBVd09rTmZVTHVhSkxwUVYzV3ZjOWwwVjBKOXRGLUlGdDlnUHNEQWlhRm5BOE5KNGRVb2xqRV9vd2tfbnRDVGs2dXkyZ2FXaXlITk9SR0VYckdPQT09 |
Yup.
> The key point is that none of these accusations stand up to any critical analysis.
Well, **so far** they haven't stood up to critical analysis. And **this time**, we've got to apply critical analysis all over again.
That's the burden of good science. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWWXlGc2d5TURmMkdEUG9FNmJoc2dBZnVwM2s3VHpRN2xBYVBaRVJ0SGRubGZPUzZxcjU2ZUNMdnQ3N0xNX1BNMHo5U2JiOGRwc3pqb1JYX2ZrM2M0QXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzajd0OFdTNFk3M0RSTWh2NEFQU2o0akZwU3I1UEtwSFE2V0Izbk15ZTZvZDNwWlZuVW5rUmVoQllraU16dElZUjBVWHl0RWtfejhsSXlvV1RjUHNCRENqbWljWC04anRZTG00YWVnYXdHUGRiblBvSzFyY1dZcWNGa1R5eV9oNHlvQXFHOF9KNEpjYzFWU1JFQzFlb1JyRXJJbWkzRzRhOFdyQnpwazhzcURLZTNZMXNSbWtqYTBfYktidGYwcklJM3J1OEJ1R0I4S3lINEZnUGVsTWNoZz09 |
From 0998926751.txt
> ... The problem is clearly one of the science-policy interface. If science cannot demonstrate that it makes a difference in terms of avoided climate change and impacts if GHG concentrations are stabilised, why bother? Currently a Danish guy, Björn Lomborg, is making the headlines again (Guardian, New York Times, Economist), TV programmes, etc.) telling the public (and policymakers) not only that there aren;'t any environmental problems, but also, even if climate change may be real, it does not make any sense at all to do something about it, since efforts to control GHG emissions are expensive
and the mitigation could not make any difference at all anyway in terms of avoiding negative consequences. Very popular message. Now clearly, scientists should clearly explain what they can say about this issue.
>...
>A few years ago we decided to try to do some matched **no-climate-policy** and (550ppm) **stabilization** runs where the two scenarios had some semblance of realism. ... A number of things were clear from this. First, one cannot tell much from single realizations of the two cases -- ensemble runs are essential. Second, as we already knew from running simple models, **the no-policy and stabilization runs diverge only slowly. Even after 50 years, the two are only just distinguishable
at the global-mean level**
>...
>Distinguishing the no-policy and stabilization runs therefore presents a much greater challenge than any of you probably realize.
>...
>My recommendation from all this is that, first, you read the attached paper (and I would welcome feedback on this) and the three above-mentioned Dai et al. paper. Then, you might want to re-consider
what your strategy should be. In my view, I do not think we as a community are at the stage where we can blindly develop paired no-policy and stabilization scenarios and simply feed them into AOGCMs to see the consequences. **I believe that carefully constructed idealized scenarios** (perhaps based on what Morita is doing) **will provide much more useful information.** You are already probably well aware of the need to do ensemble runs, and I don't need to remind you how computationally expensive this can be. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWenZ1cGJMZV9aLWI1d3NaUXlxZTJJYWZOWEw5STBGLTlNZ1BqRFplVEp4UkpYcTlaQVpnR1dRNjB3a1pyTnFxUHRPQ1c0SXFlZDdTUG5GUS1kQ25MZXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzbDZ4Mkp4bmY4dEJIUDFTM0NOdWs0dzZ6YVkyd2JqZlRDbGRKRkRJaTFMZE10Ym9VcFp0U0plNlFUd3M2X3FBeURrM0FhSXRsbllOU3U5NDl4LXJHZ1I1MElrNG5rWm1YdGtxcm1WcDdFeFVidWIyODN5ZHBPajlRdXhZdDdMNWlHWVVVVTZCcTZlVUQzVnk2Z1U5OThEZnpXLW9hZll4LU5IaTR0cnk1cE5OMEt4UjR6SDF5SWYyckQzWkJDMjFRYWtidzluM1FpOUtPNEFtV2J3cmlCZz09 |
Thing is, from the few emails I've skimmed, it looks like it's just a bunch of scientists discussing stuff. No evidence of anything that the Deniers are suggesting. They're just cherry-picking words and sentences based on confirmation bias.
Go wander around a wood, looking at leaves and you'll find a leaf that looks like Satan or Jesus or Pamela Anderson's cleavage - if that's what you want to find!
Eat the popcorn quick - this show won't last long. ;) | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWY3MyWjJLVnJaaXBYLXFOY1dnM19Sdmt1ZkoyWXpRdHhLRjBaV1J1RThQVjg2VXBMeW1aNjJDUTZIeHFGYkVPbWFHVml5Wkl6Vy1YYTFKMTFUOHZLS3c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzeGQyTjNkSGFxcW1CczZPMDI3ZHktaVRKaXhmd0QtSU50RmMzVmNRRHlPWVlPLXhLbEpxS2JFdzJsN1oyeXl0cGNBdF9OWEU1WVctNEFFbndLMXcwMk90OVg0bGd3QzlucFVaRnNOUlUyRXJCbU5jY09vTkNnb1pHTHl4ZzNtcXE2LTlEUGtjQ1QxNEtwdnJaTnZ2dVBGYzJYbVdMV2hROUZsZWZ1TlJFeldjNkFiMnBFSWpHMGlJUmtrcTI0SWE0amNrbTd4V0hvVXZPZ20wcHlzWUEyZz09 |
*You* can assume what you want. Me? I'm going to take a look at the *science*.
- Temperature of past ~500 million years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years - "Every peak is followed by a cooler period. Each peak is hotter than the previous one, and each 'cool' period is hotter than the previous cool period."
- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ + http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
- http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ + http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv
- 90% of the excess heat due to higher GHG levels has gone into the oceans, 7% in to melting snow and ice and just 3% into warming the atmosphere - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true
- 2005 hottest year on record (GISS) - http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html + http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
- 2009 record ocean temperature (NOAA): http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090717_juneglobalstats.html + http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1891
- The 14 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred since 1990 (HadCRUT3): http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?id=159&option=com_content&task=view
- The 10 warmest years on record all occur within 1997 - 2008 (GISS): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
- All the years from 2000 to 2008 have been in the top 14 warmest years on record (Met Office): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
- Picking one arbitrary year and using that to define your *trend* is nonsense. If you did that you could have said "*we are in a cooling trend!*" in 1909, 1918, 1948, 1965, 1991 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif) - and each time you'd have been wrong, just as you would be now.
- Record 22C temperatures in Arctic heatwave: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/record-22c-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-394196.html
- Arctic warmest in 2,000 years despite Earth's orbit driving cooling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8236797.stm
If you see "cooling" in all of that evidence, can I suggest that you don't attempt to operate any heavy machinery or use scissors without the supervision of an adult? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWUVpOa2hWOTBjUzI3bEV3UFBGUkdOb21CUGJfS3lKUXcxcm0zQUUxX0EzUmNqOUVrdk1oMGtNNWRuRmNnWm9YMWV6SjdudTdqMDlvbkV6a1BGRDlVeHc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzSDMxbmsyUjZ4aS04a3VfcjI4TWFsYUYtV2N6RzhUREpNNk5TRnV4cVg2Z3dkbDUtQ0gzWnJIMDJyQ2ZYMHFzbmZoaUUzYldQb01PZkxKSmtTTEMwZnZSNEJiaThwbEYwQy1hMF9OVGNjejdHdWhTY2g5allCQWZkdlctSVpYWnlpLXYxLUNFQ0VGNXBEdGhwbkNuM0huRVRnTmFuSE1UMkVkb3FoRmZRbGZWajVGUk9tNUNWaVQwQnVEOU5QdERIZ1JCaVVCQmRLb0NZNHdWOHlNNjZMdz09 |
Let us know when you find some. Until then... [yawn].
EDIT - I love the way numerous people are running around, down-voting *all* of my comments. When you have no science-based response, that's the best you can do! | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWWkt0ZHV1VjBERWhzS01RQmtTbTZQZ0tjc0lieHc5T1NWVDZ3WXg3ckYySEJyZ2pCZHFEVy1KRmllYWkxV0pqczlUSWh3T2E2YU45cW0zQXRhTTh6S2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzajZWYnN3OE82V3A1bDE3Qm5XVGV6ZktEY1NDN0cxSUl5YV94NlJ0MEVVME9QcUhkOTA5bV80bmF4WFFRMUFfVjZVX21KdWV2SGhIQ1R1ektjN0VGbUl2aGxNVVVBN3hRR1c2R21zV3lOYUxMNEFyeVdNb3AwRGZkOXRnUUFQcGw3M3lKMkNrYzlINDZjaGpvc2FnZFZDQXNUeHpYMUxTYjVHN3RqdHo0dTNEcDNxTk0tTWZUYUtNMV9Md0tEdzkzekNhbDNhZERCUnVjZmZ5QTU0RlA1Zz09 |
I'd be happy to accept a stop, when I see the plateau continue. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWMmsweU4xSDYtYVI3RjJ2ZTFYZmFfQVJLUlNROHJWQUpXTVVjUENnWE1xaXBLY3FlNkRDVFA4NEhmVVpGNWY5aWI5Y1dWbXdmcmh0dGRoZHQySWZrR0E9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzU3VlVmNDWURaZ0ZNd2tFRmRzNGtoTUpUMFVBdlVzeVJXSzFXZ1VtOUZVMGo0M3dkUWVGNGd1ejF5YklKQVhIUXpQZUp1Nl85aXJidUFHdFpmUXZlS1hFTFpndDBhX1lFRnVoNmFRaTVBZ0c0NEdObzNleVVCc0lpUkwwZmhDNmtXYXd3dDFZVlEtZXJ6Qk1SdWh0TnFEUFNIcmdrQU56QlhXVVNFR251MU1EeERNTWFjcU1OcVRTUGxVMmM2WklNNEpEcHFQeTR6dHZBQXZwRmJhVi1JZz09 |
>Eh, because it happened when man wasn't having an effect on the atmosphere.
So, finding that people died prior to the 19th Century would be a refutation of the theory that people people die from motor vehicle accidents, because there were no motor vehicle prior to the 19th Century. Have you heard that things often have multiple causes? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWbUZ4SzI1b2ZIdmxUb3kxZko5Q24wcnFtTXN6aHgxTXE1YWNYSzk5TGNyRXZyWHdNNzkzVTZscUxfRjEwWjJOVmlLc3RQVjVCT3Y4M1hPM0hWRjZKTGc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzM1ROTEpWcG91d1pqS1VaTTVJNGJBcHJVQm9mVEljeWxLOFd2TGlTbDU2RThfVF9vam9tUnVoVDBEVHJlNC1DbFlJaWJCeWRQUlJyV2NONndRdzl6VDdvdml2c0w0b1YxUVRZNG5wSWxqZE1GdS1XNFhVTjdEVFU5cXhwR3U3Rk0tUEpGbVhQZlBxYXFaXzl5SENMdEQ3a0NqWFQzVGYwMGZLbUpHanpjaFpnbkR2eEE0QkZ2SEVLbDQxNU81amZSN0Ywckl5VFF6dzFnZTFya2tHU2tjUT09 |
Yeah, but antropogenic climate change isn't a theory with a specific set of equations, like Newtonian physics is. As long as humans have affected the climate, it's true. If you get more specific than that, anthropogenic climate change doesn't become "only partly true"; it stays true. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWM0RtU3pralg5cDh6VnpEaU9vQXhHVU15RzdoeFhkLVFwTG5ORVRiWVpEaXBjM0xFSFU2WWF0REc1YU5BbVlYTU8wSkxVODhJdE90bGtscjdld2tLZkE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzblZGLS1NNVJwcTBDRVE3OEV0S0ItN0tJa2ZJTXdkcUtXYUlMUFVhU2VxcTR3QWRJdWI5ZjcwX1BBRlZKZTdLa21JNGZ4anF3d0JqS0NFcHhtODh1eTBsbVowUVdPa3hTMW01Z0lXOXlVeHptZzN6b3J3aDBiUTFJQnpXd0dUMUZOVVFDcF84bXBxQ2VjX3E1UjFsVHNwV1BEX2NTRFJvVUxOZnkzVUJUN1hydzRmUkV3bF81ZHJEM2N0NkNvMXcxY1BpNEF6XzI2eGJmOVlaMXBxbUVKZz09 |
I don't know why you're being downvoted, you're absolutely right.
Anybody with at least some experience in the philosophy of science knows that pure objective truths are utterly unattainable. Modern science takes on many different philosophical positions, the most common being that physics is just a model of the universe that might or might not be correct or close to correct, but that doesn't matter - because we have a model that gives us results and for that reason it's beneficial. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVkphdHJYOEtrT1JyMEFFZ2E0V3VIa0NzbkVJVHF2RWVMSGdSYWdncUdlanROdzFRbTFxVEVSVmRiX2dkdEExb0dydkswZW9feUs2WnpYSU1nUlo4dGc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzb3B4MGlOUHhyaEEwSEdzN3lES1ByWVdpd0VDbUUycnZISWdGclM2Yy1GZEwyaE1PSHJLQVdUV1RJYXVEbE9VaFlkeEFCRExpLUNhV0pMbGNlQjZTUjhsVzlQY05fNXlMRjdSYXRpQUlDLWcxQXRrbmhRZ0VnNUZHY284cmRlbTJQWkxCMmNvWlBVNUNaNnpBNHd4ZzRSOUtlNExEZ1BydzdONmdBdkxqQktzQi1yemQ5VDhEOXVtbmROOU0ySkx2MndjMVJBNnFPS3hETmJuVDByazBkUT09 |
>The point is to a fantastic degree within the bounds of usual experience Newton and Einstein agree.
Absolutely not. If you went back 150 years and told a physicist that your mass changed the faster you went, they'd bitchslap and tell you to GTFO their office.
Modern science is anything but intuitive, and even though they have often have correspondence principles, this is just because Newtonian physics was modeled off of what can be seen on the macro and slow-speed scales.
This however, does not mean Newtonian physics is not useful. If anything, it's a simplification that we use in many of the things we need it for, like engineering. However MattCruikshank is absolutely correct in noting that absolute truths are completely void in science today. No theories are absolute, skepticism is a necessary requirement to be a scientist today.
If you want to explore the concept further, read about Kuhn's concept of scientific "paradigm shift," the most popular example of which is the shift to Modern physics from Classical mechanics. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWeHNwYzVhQTB0aXltQjZqRzU4Z3FMdVh6Zk9rSHgzaTNPc2RsRHFKUmc0dmN1Vy1UYVNHTzI1TzhRX2tyVHZCM2JwMjdSUjJTRDJ1Y0s1bmRGRThydGc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzY3JPSDZMQ3d2dWR3QXdEOVFxTklySE5zc2J4LWI4V3dHZGp3endRZGFWX3ExclF4SG03X2pGempPalIzX0ZNYU5lZWdLNG9MalFoeE9oaWRacG5fcTQ2U196ZVpvX3VfUFh2bjRZemhoazI3eC1NMnM4X3VBV0pNRlZfZVd5VTZhbHJ3MHBKNVJHdm1MeGJ2UzJYQ0s2OXB0WDVkQVpVam9ycnBpNVkyaU1XOVRfQUVodFdacG9JX0pQZFNLRFg0SWlYdUN5R2owcDVoVk4xYXhjY0NzUT09 |
You think that warming stopped 10 years ago?
- Temperature of past ~500 million years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years - "Every peak is followed by a cooler period. Each peak is hotter than the previous one, and each 'cool' period is hotter than the previous cool period."
- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ + http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
- http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ + http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv
- 90% of the excess heat due to higher GHG levels has gone into the oceans, 7% in to melting snow and ice and just 3% into warming the atmosphere - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true
- 2005 hottest year on record (GISS) - http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html + http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
- 2009 record ocean temperature (NOAA): http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090717_juneglobalstats.html + http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1891
- The 14 warmest years since 1850 have all occurred since 1990 (HadCRUT3): http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?id=159&option=com_content&task=view
- The 10 warmest years on record all occur within 1997 - 2008 (GISS): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
- All the years from 2000 to 2008 have been in the top 14 warmest years on record (Met Office): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
- Picking one arbitrary year and using that to define your *trend* is nonsense. If you did that you could have said "*we are in a cooling trend!*" in 1909, 1918, 1948, 1965, 1991 (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif) - and each time you'd have been wrong, just as you would be now.
- Record 22C temperatures in Arctic heatwave: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/record-22c-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-394196.html
- Arctic warmest in 2,000 years despite Earth's orbit driving cooling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8236797.stm
If you can see a cooling trend in amongst that evidence, can I suggest that you do not operate heavy machinery or use scissors without adult supervision? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWeWgxN043US1aWlhvcVVlVUViSWtSMmxKUDdZdHM1dDFvRk1la0N1ODI1MkNJb2NhRmdlR3NuRW1yZVRwdl8wWG1LRWgtaURNQVNzOUZhRllLZVNoaFE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzMUMzbERQaUFxbjRqUFowRExCOGlNNXJNRHlvQ05qb3VUVFZrUWVMcWd2ZllCMDlnVXc0aUh4OENVSTFNZE54bk1RTzZCTzNCUEp5MzU1QnRlbThVbFBMUEh4eWtBenhsSDdUTllqZjlIclphbG9VaV9BYXVBUkpWMEdKSGZxbV9xcUhEWFRXcUVGQUJjWXNnaTRKS1pCM2ZkUmpoOUpMV1hlR01nVFd5SWJwUmZIYTNUdHZDc0s0cU1sUkVZUTRxRDRQMXVOT2ZlV2tfVEotand4bzUwUT09 |
Surely the entirety of Global Warming data, from hundreds of universities, does not all fall into this small subset of scientists within the scientific community?
If so, why hasn't there been a serious rejection of the validity of this information within the scientific community?
My guess is that these were just some number pushing scientists who instead of taking the time to ask why their data was coming up wrong, decided to take the lazy route and fudge it.
It's bad on them, but by no means suggests that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVFJFY05BUDJPcTJONE9jM2hQczZfdVBZSGNaRENSY2hNdDQ5TzNBOFhFaWFHZ2Fnc09NRFZHYU1hTGpsY0puSjlVeWl2Yi1wNUlhV1RfMkNoU0R0VXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzQ0h4WmxON3dxT0VZdHRTN25FU1pJdDhWT1E1Vmh0N3ZabmJvMklIdkNtZnhZSWhMd0FxOUdKdVNGODNJakZObVNJalpnVjBlbDFRbWYwUnpaVlBrWmNHYkFjelJBeDluZzVaLWUwQk1OZ3EwVnBzWFZ6allrd3JrQ0ZfbXoyQnJ4LXJFVTlBVkxHOUJVckdXLTlvNkFTNUJlUGZLem54RGdiZDNwQlAyVy0xRU5nTGNhM05oZFhBMDlhY3ZYOUhMeGwtd2pEbnNaN0ZMTzlMUjZfVkVqZz09 |
>Rather than this incident being a coup for the Deniers, it's going to expose their lunacy to a wider crowd of people. It's going to be another spectacular own goal for the anti-science zealots.
That's exactly what /r/conspiracy is, right now.
Bleh, thanks for this post. This is exactly what I wanted to do, but I was too lazy to do all the work of collecting it. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWZVdWSWpfa0c2MkZiVnBwdkZETHRDNS15ZE85X2RTZEhoMk5YVzItVnJ4YjA5M0pOdUdvbU83VkRPYmszeE56RF9ackJTUHVpcDBMSm5sQzVESmdCZnc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzT1ZVQXlnT2ZNRGVvZ2dyQmlvR2RrMG44ckJ3aGNMSHRzWmlrQzZQYjJrVmVrQ3Ytdmg1cEF2MGZETmt4NTlfSVRPQ2VCV0VxczNmRG9LSDJkNGEtYUpCb3NvRUxxVHpId1R4c015Y1pnQjBYZ2JjaS12VWdLREtldDRwT1V4a0s4enZKTjdheUVxc2UxNnlFSlQxLVRQZ3RuLTBUUlBUTUJPYWxBNWNRRG94RE5UWTAtN2lVQTVNNF9fQmE2bjN0aWxEbENFX0M0cXFjMm5IU3d4Z0Ztdz09 |
Yeah, I'm still a big fan of "falsifiability," even though I know there's reasons why that isn't the best metric. I haven't read enough to understand the distinctions as thoroughly as I should. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWcU1Wdmk2NGYwd1RJbFNLZGowM085eEtjcE9VbUtkb1pWcG93b283eUljVEtJNlFXQ3pjNERWUlBsSnlxSXZrNzNnbmJOVkpqRnJwa1VoV2lwaklnQ3c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzQTVBVnZKNFdaSVl4QUE2VUZvTERQSFY3Tkx6Q1ZNMjN4bmVwTVJqTTVLaTFHQ0xxMGdOelJURW9oNk03NW1vUjBEUENRelVvT2hZTHcxVWZLUUNuZE5uOWMzczRRa213eE5BbU82ZVVOeXV5MDJtN3VUTzlnUEdwVGloWXZ3amZQUkE5a2tlbjRRd2lYd1RLWndoQlJYaFN6WXpnUUF6NTcycVRTTXVkdy1PUGdaWkpfVXhyb0xEZVJUUG93Ukg1dHJybTlSN29RRkdQM2xfNUJtRlJWZz09 |
> As long as humans have affected the climate, it's true.
Unless it turns out it was something else that did it, while looking like it was humans that did it.
*shrug* | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWRGZXQ3hXNTc3T3JpZUl4TlRZY1lnRi1rTm9hMlNTQ1dJOENSelBvRmpqREhDMm84Wk5ORmlFMlNNb3pXcUZlZW0wVG1rZGRYVDdnMi15cV9wS3ZuMHc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzaGdUN1VULUl4eHpfT0xGWVh1UGFwQWlVVnliOE4zOEIwQ3g4bl9uc18tTlJKNFhRemg1SFhjU0lMR3RLdFVQOWI5TkxlYVlsdlQtaXpxZVJBaWxtakJiYm04c1g3UzZYaGlHSTVWdy1qQjFfSDhTWkFtcnZWSUVjVm9xY3FVdlJ0VUdtRmsweW0weWpWX0RRY2gtT3lTcW5XWkhPN1lDLVBQMHNfMHpTOXpaLWM2MFE3NXRjUTZ4eGozdHNDTXl3aHM3dFlnenFvS1VUbW1wY0gxMEhQdz09 |
As a lay person, I agree with the sentiment of your yawn.
The scientists, however, have to take every charge deadly seriously. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWVWU0MnBETTNSMEhCd0VjZFhmSzA3cW9CNjFla2tVNTN0VFE5SXptOEN4SEZnRlJhazBXY2hvVFNBUTRPUXdxVkRkbmhuUWFudFlVNnZHTGFVOHJ1Y2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzZnFMenhEa0dQQUw0QlloU2w5dXhQZURJTm00VGhSNnZrZV9EUUFtd3RfZmtaX1lDbGRCLV9DelJVS0dZZVNCUDlVQlNxcHZDSElWMDhWZHl0V3c5V0Y3VlFfUGJWcnNuQ0h2ZHN3dkRvUVVuNmFhbkEyTVJpT0VmQUkzbUhYMFlyR1FOczduS282RkROUGU4aG9KSVBsc1BRTDhHMldCYzRSNzdqd054UjZsOG0xTDNBTXVWd3FaVFI4My16STQ3UlRITF9EaHZjbGhyQjl0UWhxNkpVUT09 |
Article intentionally obfuscates difference between heat and temperature. Heat is increasing, temperature isn't (average terrestrial temperature has not gone up much since 1950).
It's the "ice cubes melting in a glass" scenario. Heat of system is rising, temperature is standing still. The question is simply "what systems are currently countering the rise in temperature" and "what are their limits, ie, at what heating rate will they break and stop functioning causing a rise in temperature". | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWWTZ5bnUtb2s0ZGhqMkgxLUZ1aUNkbjNkd0plX3hPaTU0SDN4MXVhakZkX0ViaVNzRGFHZVlMTGtJX0RpcmgtQ3JlSDNuc2p3NjJLV2djUXlWcUdfUkE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzQUhyc1RSUzNxTzNUQmhuYkFIcTVEZzNqZGlJRllFREczUHZiVDFTYXppazhHOXVBUW5qcm4wWWFwSXlvbG5qVklHbGhQUzlldHBZOHlCX2FhaUtON2JPSWtrTzRUWGVCRklGdGMzMmxZd2g4OS16UnZpcXJ5bEd6b0p6ekdQdmJ5NWdFZlBPdUVsT3VleDU0eGxNVE9sWUhkNkJxRXF1VEJhZGZBYS1Gb0NRaU9aUDVTbzFxcVN1RzBWUElvSGZFS0V1cXlPaDB5bVE4Y0FRcy1zTjh6Zz09 |
Good username. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWYzRybEJwVFlUOEtfSTdEdHJaZ3BDcHY2SnEwVkR0ZG5ocng4Rmo4d25aODhjZkhpMzFHemhjQVBpWnduZFpQMFNEdFBPdXJyUzVxeXFiUjQ2aUFIVGc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzLUVQRmZYamhsbGtyd1JsN3hsWUdMS0Z0T3A0SDRJZGMwVENsVzd3VXFHVDBnUFdSNHdjV0pkdXFCUjVNd2FDbVBfX0pyRTNFVHJ0bGFaQ3hOMlJmMmNWSUFBMlVQdmNUT0ZSUFg1UnFRM18wSlFLOXd6cXVmdWVneG11dzdMaWpOczYxYjZJdEZHSG5md1h5TGNpd0FSemtPR2xYZ2lUaWtELWdmSVpjdXNya2luSzhrS093RkFoOEZOUHRrQVlxX2lnWm9kVXJ1R1FtRHlmUzBzRzM0UT09 |
I hope not, I already worship Newton's laws of motion, which are also a fact beyond all reasonable scientific doubt, and in your terms, a religion. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWbVo2MnYyWEEzLVRMMm1CTS0yQ3gzdE0wYzlsMUEzbENwTDdnaGN6Rlc1TU9SYXlLR2lZMnFqYnVfZUJMRzhjWWVRNXpseEhyWG1xdjJSc1NLQkM0ZHc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzajZnNVloMU04ZmYzUXNIc0wtOGhHVFV0ZFlDbUJ2dUNGYmtkUUJpOWtHUy1ndmRJTWRyVW1uTUgwQklsbVliZG4xa0hueWc0dGJrLUJUVkQtV0dubFktT3BKb2FtWl9JMGVMV0E1QWhlbHBkQ1FYZS1lbXlrekQweW9lalF2U0JZamMzTG1DVTJNUk1SSG1mWHU5ZHA5eWNBS0ViZ2NHVHdUX2Vfa0VDTVo4aXFiTldTeDJGOGMxUnNCSFBhcW1FakJ2WmN2aUJtNVdET3hELWNmaGMyUT09 |
If you decide to read up on it, [Wiki's article is good](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms), or you could go with what is generally taught in a philosophy of science course, which details Popper, Kuhn, and then Lakatos philosophical stance in comparison. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWbzQzMXdvYXlhQ3R0OHJEZGpfaHdIWl9uTk1tMWs3WGh3cWZrd1BmbjRaZVdqUUNvREJrT2lseWs5ZzBMU2VsaHhsVXpjUTNQeDNVRXFjUkE3UUVMU0E9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzcUFCN1ItODZRRTRnTl9UeXMzVTFFSGxGVGNuRmhkYlNVc3dBNEl6N1VaWWNlZGpKdGJRTUFsREc0SGFwUFpHR01UYjR0dzA5QjNZTFpDZ3d5SDIzbmZrZjR0T3pnb3ZsQkJtSHdmVU1obFdSdGxpWUtyb1l2MFdYWmtwYng0ODBjMUNlZkNVMnZFVXgtaW1sTjdZM0xKaXVVbDBoR1J5ejgyVV9sbVJvcUZ0MVRNOVBRcjY2UHl2LWZiVnpxS195MzR4akpGS25JZnlTakNDN2lLejl5Zz09 |
Newtonian physics is actually plain **wrong**. Relativity showed that. It's just that the relativistic corrections are extremely tiny for objects that are not moving at near light speed in our reference frame. So in pretty much every case you would measure the Newtonian value without having the experimental sensitivity to detect the differences due to relativity.
Just to clarify. When I publish, I don't present anything as facts. I lay out the experimental evidence in a clear and concise way. Then at the end, I present my **interpretation** of the data. That's the way science works. You can't be 100% right in physics because no experiment can totally cover all of your bases.
When a scientist tells you something is a fact, it's because he doesn't want to allow room for doubt when the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of his interpretation... especially with people who don't know the field of research and can't understand the data. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWaHlvVFphWVA3YjIxSVpOeUF1SGNrN1ZUQ2VzU2g1RmRZOG1VeU90U3N6NFhoZjMtdkVaSEZtVWxBaXhPMzFvTFo1MHp4S3hTc3Qzb3dmWU5BY1psTUE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzS3pFVWNWelRqMnZQMHE4dm1OZGlZY0h0cENJUVRLZ2RlMDltNXBGZ29BMGNTQlM2blp4M0NaWFhwOWZLTXQ0MGE3WUJZVlk3VUxlLTJwOWxpb1djWW9hd1dkNHk1eXZURXVKTE52WnpXcm8ycTd5b2Z4cTZaZmJOaHItcEo2cGpkVll4ZUpWWlF4bGdWcUI4cTZjQjRYRXphdkFlYnM5TXEtMFVIbGlEbjlBczFwWEotUzJWZmlocEd1X3V2QUZPcGpiajFkbDNLTkVFaUpyUXc4akhOdz09 |
I can't construe that as anything, because we have no context. And neither will the majority of people who comment on this email. Who are Mike and Keith? What does "hide a decline" refer to here? What's a "Nature trick"?
The only thing that's clear to me is somebody's privacy has been invaded. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWRWdvaUVpOU05STRPeGxZZmJvdm51NXlQYVQxcE1wWm1iWHg0WldTN2RzaHBxTGRWNFFILUlDN05tNExCZ1pFRG1ubWJXYjY1S0NPbUJDVUpaNFlSd2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzTTk2VUN3SmxtemJCdDE1dHRRZy1NY05aVXBIQ1R6YjdfTXh4YXhNbW1wX2pyV2xIcEsyM0tjZldpSm0ybFFVY0k0RF9qcWFVQmJyVnZKZGkwd2dwLVZKcDB4RDJHdmJ1bkc3b09EbXhBRXFwQkFXdHk3QjZyU2Ntalk5eUhNUXNfcFlNd1RDamNHYWZHTk1ielFYUE53cC16bWJsT1RLZWU4VTFGQUtJYlIxRmUzUDhpdXNSSlBhSHlWTXFwaEVvRk5HY19GekV5Ql9fVmhVMVdwZGFoQT09 |
Do happen to know what Morita was doing, to provide more light?
> I believe that carefully constructed idealized scenarios (perhaps based on what Morita is doing) will provide much more useful **information**.
Now, I don't really know what's going on here. But the word "information" means that they hope to learn something. Not that they're trying to fabricate anything.
For instance, when I'm trying to determine cause and effect in my software, I carefully construct tests, where I can isolate one variable at a time. Then, I can determine, if I want a given outcome, which single variable would be most effective in addressing it. That's how optimization works.
To me it sounds as though Lomborg is saying everything is too expensive and wouldn't help anyway, and the response here is that they're trying to carefully construct idealized scenarios to provide much more useful information about which specific actions would have the most impact on global-mean level.
Again, *I don't really know* what was actually meant here, but scientists are also advisors, too. This sounds a whole lot like trying to figure out the best advice to give.
What does it sound like to you? Why the word "information"? | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWZV80RXk1T29VQ0FOS2FEZUQ2RnhLTVZmdnZXaTF4MEppU2lmaEhOWkUzVjhFaU02eXV1bkJ4UjVhVHBsX3ZCc0ZpMjhrSEYzeGUydGdrUG1CeXIxeXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzQnFfTWN3UVFXWkk5QXp2NXZkaFlvcVlzcFZMNUQ1cmMxajg4NHJGS3BRTmZGVGV5MEZoVjE3MzVJaWFnNHhLeExRd3FWQWwxTnRoU0FaZFFhWVZ4dUJ5X2JqNDQydkpDcWpBckFuR0pBaFVfeDlKTGtRQ0U4WC1tZzg3ZUs1UkpyQVIxYVc3X0E5bU5jTUVqN2pmRS13a2VKMktOUVpkTUJJcHlKQ2dLdmF6U1laLWYtMlhsUzJjUGFodHJLSjljV2VNS3J0SWs2WkpjNTVzdnhoWkhmdz09 |
This is splitting hairs a bit, but you're technically wrong. The analogy is better than you allow. Newtonian physics *is* wrong: it's just a good approximation for most human activity.
Your example, spacecraft missions, actually do sometimes use some general relativity.
QM, EM, etc. have not extended Newton's work. They've *refined* it.
//Puts his physics bachelor's degree back on the shelf | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-20 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWbkRpb0o2cG1kMUJ4NTktWjNndlZiWUVYSHFLN0Nsb2c0Q1N4NlU0Xy12SjVjWTIxNFpXTHRMVjh0Sk9SbVhhMWxqaTR1MEVSNndfazRreWpCbmROSlE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzSGRhSHl2c3A3LXJJZWF0bmxzbzRZRDdDQUUyVEZSd0pEMDBiaEhrWFZNLVdMcXkwbWRwNG9WYUVJWkZiaGl2azZDWVd4WF94MmkyOGRzUHRvY01YNWxXUV9jRmxLU0ZtZEJ6RzlBa1hYMnJkMVdaMEpJaUxJZ1lsUFA1ZElDZkdsT3JQNUlrQ2lSN1dZNm9UZ2xjZHRQWW1oc1hWWEZCY2JXT0tuZEZEd3dKSzRxajc5bWhneWdicHZsQUVsRlh4R1A4MDFmSGhxRnU4bThESm1jdGhldz09 |
Let's hope no one hacks a mathematician's email. *They're using imaginary numbers that aren't even real!* | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWYnpaNGtoMlZRZlAzT3p6eHVCRzg5dzRiTDQwa2xEbEM3NnRfZjFseHdFZ1RsUjVZRVBpNGd0OHdBb3EyUmJkdzdxdTlHak1xUGRFTVFuZFgxV2tzNnc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzejd2NVRfanNMTGFRNUdqMWg1MVR5YVQ1bG4zN244RFJmeVJZVFVkeXVEOThVSjVxSnlXTjV3dFhaZE1MdHFFWmhiVEs0ekk0N3BUcHF6NWhUTzNPSF9fVHBCXzBCSkhydld6T2o5QWhPRkI3ckVKcVVuY1lXZUd6ZDBUR2VLQXNUV05Gb0RWNjFISFBtX01CUnZYZUU1WldWcGRuMWJSVXdGMHhydUxYbTZxeHF6OHozNmstUlJYMzM4YzNwX2R5NTdNak1tdFA2bk5waFJJUnRxdjE3QT09 |
> How have they managed to fool the thousands of scientists represented by...
Some possibilities include:
1. Those scientists are liars too. We have stuff on the CRU people. We have nothing on the others. This does not imply that there is nothing to be had.
2. Those other scientists are biased in favor of certain positions. They are thus less likely to carefully check what the CRU people claim. If you think X is true, the idea that someone would lie to prove X does not immediately occur to you.
3. The other scientists have lots of stuff to do, some of which would actually advance their careers. Carefully checking the CRU people's work would not help them. And it might hurt them, because the CRU people (or those with a vested interest in them) might be tougher on them in reviews and whatnot. Looking out for #1 allows bullshit to walk. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWQ0lvNHRZZC05YVVkeFE5V2hjS05qdkZXd2RJZWUxNkNEV3k5bml1djJLaWd3bnhqSFN5MkJZV2tMWm8tTVFCQmNfbkpwZl9YTWsxTFRsS0RzWTZqZkE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzdlFIbklJeFlyUnc5ckxRd0Z0QmszS2xOaUJUX0FyS0ZuVThkQzIwUjJrd1Vmc0VWSlkzb24zNUtfLU5oN0ZSUWVkcTlnMGg2THJtLVdUcGtWUDRveEg3c0M0VUx0ZVptdWZpQURtRnFKNS1LU2Z0RWpON2FwaXJUbnNxQy16QUVYV3h0V2tXeE1hZDJacVZtcnh2c1dyQXZaZUVuNkFpMXFBUUYwMVhTbDZKU3Qxdm0xRDVhZ0l3RHVHUUUwS04xUnM3b0ZsUzdTXzR4WDdNbDlZQm1nQT09 |
You wingnuts are funny. You seriously think that thousands of scientists in dozens of different countries are colluding, fabricating supporting data and lying in unison to... do something!
And they've managed to do this for *decades* without anyone finding a shred of evidence for any of it?
Not only that, they've managed to convince millions of people that the tundra, ice packs, glaciers, monsoons, rainy seasons, migration of fish and birds - all of it has changed. How? Mass hypnosis? Has Dr Evil built a giant death ray on the moon?
Tighten the tinfoil hat, bubba. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWMVFVOW43amJmV0JQZ1BpQUNZdldUN2Z1LThPcjBuaXotRzVnUUJETDFvdmcxTkNUZW94V3RRZ0F1UC1lOHFBb3BOXzhBNC1yc3lyVVhfNzdPeGtyQ3c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzVTA3MHhxZENSWDg0TVFDemZYaHh4aVctMmFCeHdVd3YxWmVld0hMQWpvcGE3QUl3ZG1hdVNBS1lZTkItZzE5cGhUVy1fUjNtWWFkVndZWVRETnNLeFV1UUt5SXd3d3dOVlc0Y0U5Y0RCQVVxU3QxWFVzc015ZjlqWHVvNk96cVpRTmlLOG9hSjRQbjl0ZS14cTh3MS1NTi12bHBVcEtzeGl2eXFYSWFoMWxqbjE0NkJvcndIMHVibEQxcGdMelowZU9jcVV4YkRteVVGTUpqZXRRanZGdz09 |
> You seriously think that thousands of scientists in dozens of different countries are colluding, fabricating supporting data and lying in unison to... do something!
No, I don't. But you had previously suggested that we assume for the sake of argument that the CRU people were lying and colluding. If we do, then suggesting that others are lying and colluding is not prima facie ridiculous.
> Not only that, they've managed to convince millions of people that the tundra, ice packs, glaciers, monsoons, rainy seasons, migration of fish and birds - all of it has changed.
Not necessarily. They might have just convinced millions of people that those events ought to be interpreted as evidence for some claim. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWMVEtNjllVVNnaWVrbHhxd3pRUlVzcGZqOFU5V0w2RmxZT3NTVkZsM2hCUWlDeHBxNE1KSVNwWE1TVmhJNUpXYXZ4UzFNRXhQV1liZlJmRTdYTjFFUWc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzQmJvRnZhXzlXLUotTWRtT2o3VmloQkR1ajl5YjY4ZG00VTNSTld2bUFiUnhENmt5aVN4Q0VwZTdrMW1XSE0xaDR1SXh4aDJ1S0trRk1hc25FUlU4UWRXcndXc3B4eU9xVGQ4RmJtVFN2ejB6UkxsdHNIV3FCOTJFdHpyTk5OcXl6ZUJpVDNLcURJM1l4V3doMGR1alU0OGV1QXRvYzk2TTUweHZGanNtRmpVVTNnZUkzSTdlYkFKWUNXX0NKb0NYazRwWVF4bWZSWE54Z09SYlAwSHdMdz09 |
Like magic leprechauns? I'd like to see your published paper with *that* alternative explanation | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWMHhJS3J6WjQycnBKT2NrZlZhZEQ1RXlOSEtBQWNnM0R0MUh1TlUyNktyaVVTRkh4akpWZGVrempZZ2l2cGk5NG5ESWVUTktMQVUxNGZNMXpiX0l6MHc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzcW5YbGwxNHlmSWQ2WEE5Z3dEcVExQllSNW1RaVhOSC1OVHp1VVk3YmpEUGprY0p4ZXhKQnJSZ1dLalZrdjJXemhsdUt3QUEwYXZBeUJlUHp3bHcxekQySkxTa05CUzlMaDVLeHE1YThYZGo5ckM4Ukk0MXU4b2RGNUhMT21FRkxfaEttRDBoSFdMUHpxNHh4RURqYVNQNEZhRXFUUWNsOTA3b09Tb2ZtbThLOFJzRUhiZFBLODNaMi01NENRWkV3dGhPN1lYdXh2b21LZzduNHVUVjlLUT09 |
You thought that was bad, I practically said the same thing over [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/a6jdh/breaking_hackers_bust_open_climate_change_scam/), and got called a "religious fanatic" for it.
Upon further questioning, apparently anybody who spends 10 seconds looking at these emails can tell they're real, and if they are real, it only takes 5 seconds to determine that global warming is false.
Never underestimate the stupidity of those so sure of their wisdom. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWam5jQkxLRGNRRnN4SVh1YUluWHk5TFBpZDNpbjRfV2lQTGItQTVRRUstSTloczhjLW5DMVdTQzA1eFNLYVY4N1lKaEZVR3F2NDRRSVpPNXhJVXhCNGc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzdm9OdlZnMTdiR05HWmFaTXB2VElYRUdTVUl0QmcxUFBVM29IOVFxaE1sMzBPZjhJUlplY3I3bXkxSVFmbTRDcl9sblphbmRWeWFPcmszZmd4cThKOGNIYk1CUmpnSGVfclUxa1I0cF9nbzh0T1pNbk1HbmhkUHZaRTA2eW85Y29HbXY0SjZ4RXdmMThmSmg3bzAxTEVRRmJLZkZhNDlublcyY0dKc3RWX3IyblgtNXRVQkRaSHlUZTVQUnhlbEN6YW5DVDVfaGhaczd5SmFsX18wV3VaZz09 |
>Can you do the Navier-Stokes equation in your head?
That honestly made me shudder. Seriously. Get out of here with that crap. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWQzZidjZGOEhKTTVhdWl1d3lHb3ZTRWFyTkhiU2JSV3BBcmdMRk5jMkxwUUZWN2xzNWxYcnhTZlhJOWtWWjlVTWphWnpnWVIwWXRPUGgyOVU0YjFxTXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzOEYzczlVeW4wc21vaVprRWwxQUNQeHQyZF9WVEdIVjl0UjdmcFdYMzVyYXd4Z25peHFiaWtETkJralVNUV93SUxrc2RYcDFTak9Cc0FjakZVVlhmMm5UdWpMcHlCY0NQY0doS2RmM3dfUGl5OU10UzA5aGtqb0Q3dTNFYWlWMWR0YXRITFlhTUhsS0lJdHJRTG00X0FPZWZyRExkMC1OUm9TQ0lkczNWclQwX1BfYzJfdGQxcHMtTl9BaTBLV3ZNVWtIdUF2ZXpFNXMzUVJPendVT3RaZz09 |
[The authors of the emails have confirmed their legitimacy](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/). And yes, it's clear from the emails and documents that there are serious problems with the data. Download and read them for yourself. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWbG5jb1kxTmk5OVFVM1NIUy1teERLc1RkaWp3emk3LXFoekVnX2paM1Y5WVpadDF6VUx6TmhMOUtuczNTbnIyUEJNNHBPVHhCeGdvWFp0N3RWMFphd2c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzZEdkaDZObDZMcnJZb1p3QXZfN3M4ZFhqX3pjTlFIRWNQc1p0SVRSektFakhjZHN6ZEZGVDhCdmFCODcwYVRaVzF4RjZFeVUzWUxUT3VBTFIxdXVqeS1lRW44alROWERHT2lsSzBWdWlDZ2FOcTRjVnVVZmNOSlh4cHp5SjBUNFpJaF80V0QtNHF0bFRaUWVuX2s3cEQ2WE55NE9RNzU5VFROVlVQUGRKWWhxQjlsREZObWRmMUZPSm9JSGZaOFFFVjM5U0JLM3B5MDVDRjFnbGtVSTFCUT09 |
I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me that it would be pretty straightforward to fool all of those organizations **if you had the only complete data set and you did not share it**.
Again, I'm not sure that what I've described is really what's happened here, but that's the impression I'm getting. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWRERzX1dUdDJ0NlhxS2Z6MTV5U2xCWUQxZldiSk95aHBRWU1qYzI0RTR0WjN5bmV5UGtDYWVKcE5RdEN3a2NwdmFYdmxLY0sxMUxmVmMwM1VQTHlrZXJrcnpyU0pEcUNHalJXRndMX0xpaGs9 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzSjFjQ2dLVjYyZGNOSGxSSVNJelEyLVZmR01TZlNSYzFlTndqY1R2ejA2QkFWSzBZSlIwZWpNaU5xX25HdjhzTnVtNU1uRUVhUGFkMGxYSmNqUm5qQUhtWlBLMUlnOXVlUE5JTk5haWtkV3dHUGNJWXN4LXZKSWdxWXNwWG82cEVWU0pGZU5RM1B0ZXlyTFMwMkUtS1dKbFVFSE14U3FxYmJRcE9UeHEwY0U4MGRheldkNTBuTVA1dnlPWEJDcUcxbmRKaWpyNVViMkhfcXpNV0k0MGhtZz09 |
Warning: the title of this post is total bullshit. The emails do not contain anything of the sort. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWS3d4bjFmWmh4cGFFdjJYamZmdm9LZUJycEpiNmJ5aHdfSFFmeTdFOXNrallDekJyd0Rocnp0M3ZkVjVHdHFjczRYczFBbi1DQmlNZDJEWS1ZNXZFbEE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzTlRtS0N0Y1d5NDRNVmdPc2ZRWGhEYjliNXdTM0VsM0puaEZOM0xlTEZSa2dJYW0yVkRfWDBnWEtqZmdQMDBpZUEzeGVaSXh2akNLRVlBVXV0c3BfMUwxUEhYX3FXMGQ3ZERSVHpnSWxzaGlER3p5Ri1ZUnlLQWRLd1MzeFJMcjBCZ21wNzBhbVRFUFFGMVNvSWxGYVZ5Nkl1ODFtNEpuWmU5Wk85c0Q3WklXTWlzTmxsOWhLajNNLVZvWUs2R2hRZWtLTUFLWHpyNTItYjFRXzhmbDRldz09 |
Well, there you go.
I won't agree that it's clear from the emails and documents that there are serious problems with the data, though, as I don't understand the context they're given in.
As somebody who has worked with data and done loads of data reduction, I know that scientists often refer to things as tricks, it could just be a mathematical trick or some algorithm to simplify data, something that could be easily misunderstood and was represented in a way to further get a point across. That's actually very common, and is the duty of the scientist to express.
On top of that, let's assume these few scientists are absolutely corrupt? Then what? It sucks, majorly, for it's a huge blow to the credibility of the scientific community, but it still leaves mountains of other evidence. Those aren't tossed out on whim, are they?
I'm not saying it's impossible; however, I am saying it's incredibly unlikely, that the entire global warming claim is a complete hoax? Maybe to somebody so naive as to what kind of scrutiny is placed into scientific publishing - they can view it like politics, obscured and easily manipulated.
Well, it's not. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWSVVtWmxKSmUxWTFSZ1g2Sk93ZVlERkcwSGtGUmtUX2Q3cExXMEJaQXZHRXc0OFFqYjcwcjdnZVpqSUdFMDZUY1oxbGRlYlh3aUk5R0FERDNncVVBTVE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzSnZuZUNuUlc5LUVlOXJKXzJjcnZfM0dMdUdYcGZCdmVwcmVJS0g0eE95dHNPTGxXSmRMQnZhSDM0RzN2SUtEa1llVWFVbS00Q3NqMDM1b0RtWWhLZFlCRFJzT2FlNTBNdEY1aEZxWTBrcFljcHEtUm0ycUJGc2Jsb2dmeXo3ZkUtazJYSy1FbTFxSGlNV1Q2TklDRENCWFJqVDh3MS1zNGJubTEyN3B0YVliMHFkbXhJV1hPcmJVZzQ5bnFnRlRQdXBwSllMYm43R3d5TmpkY081RWJSUT09 |
Some people have been saying from the beginning that its a hoax. Told you so. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWdGpPU0xodHVhWEhWSG1USms1b0JPdTAzNk1La0RSMVE0SzZVMm9hTFkyZnh2Y3Joc0JEM2xKcmFDRjlta0NXdWZoaFpFNjJldXlTVlVpd09MSnBoQlE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzWTVTMGxtVGNnZFpmUVVZclVFNW1YU3Qyc1RzZFBJbFN3VTdPaGdhVWlKV09FYUpPamhTNERSeFd2Vnh3R3doOWRnUlpwZC10dEt2VUdiX25OVGZON3UxbDYydjYwX2RVOHhiM0s3dzI2YXVpaW1OaXpLMzM5YkpZLTdWSFNDdGU1a2t4Y0FlQWc4U0ttUnl5WVkzSFFjWnNWMldsOGptTFhTWElua05uZEluVFJrOHR0cUIwR1lQbHlpY3N5eWF3emlZYXJfalgtdW9ycGlMZVN1N1UyZz09 |
"Death Panels"
| r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWTDN5RlZHeG1nenJkTjVsMlZhLTA0cVFWNEJmY294LUE2T0FIa0loMVlBeFNjNl8xMmZvQXF2SlBVdkFqbTJrTWx4MkdmNGVkb2xUUWxubkdTcmpOemc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzSGlvVE02RUpvTHViQWdZSWFENmhYWUdSVngtdW45Y3dDLXFKWmRiN2lZTnJlLVg0V2ZXTDB2WHRUNGE3X3c4Z3R2UEZmTXR3ZlZMSTZsVWtsTk9DbFFrM3plWEdhLUFCY1VOM19lZHRucXJsQTE2bDNuMS1zWHZPbU91amJka3hnRG8yV1pQRW1iZmg1M3Q3NHBlUGtXbnhBV005SDhzYjJkTFBVVjNuQ3JtZUV1SFRKdzdFZ1ZzNnFvQUpQbmt0dEdGZ2s5dFJqd2lISlc5NFJiZTZodz09 |
Socialist New World Order Death Camps! Bring the family! Al Gore's waitin' for ya! | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWZHJld1Z6VHBWd3o1elEwU2hlcFFNTXk2TFNvaE9QM3F0Z3FzQmpTMzJnZ2NNaVAtdk5QbEJJTXNpRk5XNjNzSW5OOWZocklvWDZoMWk4d2ZxV3BYdWc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzeFc5WkUxRnFhb2tLdlhjVXlXUmp6N2c0RWdPeGFUQkpnRGx6YWZ6T0tQNmZHVEh3cjRmR2Jzc0g1MkpOX21EV2NzbDVSZEtpOXRxVFRMbVVrcTRBMUZkX01OczVxWWNxSkNpYzZDX3ZZT3RDTW1qSlJCUk90U3dwdVdUYWlmQ2RSUkE3VU0yZFM3dXFEdjk5QjlXU2RfTVd4aWc3cGhKNlJLb25zNGJFTHo0WHhpYXBGV29iYVUwYWluUlZyWkk3dnhTLXQ1SEh2QnRfUDNKcUplcjh0QT09 |
>What does it sound like to you? Why the word "information"?
Because the word "results" would be a bit blatant?
I tend to question the intention of the word "useful" in "useful information".
Seeing as he admitted earlier that the models were not giving them a divergence (which was undesirable??), it seems they *needed* a divergence and they had to *try really hard* to get the models to tell them what they wanted.
| r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWbVpFOG1lckxRS0x2blY2V1MtSWxvaU1Ld2psbml1TWw1ZjlaQzdGZ2ZuQkF4dDRjendJZ3VVd3JwRm1xNVozUV9fOUtWNEs5czJNbDBzZEZrNExIRXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzWXFiOF9HY2VtN3BoZTVGY2hKZmVRUnU5a3dZMGxMVDFWZm03RzlBcy1CNllkUW5McFpmRWRsV1lEU1pMX1NGYmRWUmNOam9NaXpBakNjWWFuY0JLMDhYTWhaNURTb0FRbkNmMFBoZnd4cThLVUJqTGFiaHhTVnc1SlotNnVjQ3B4ckZHaEVHQjIta0FwdG42S09NYXh6d3hMNklFRGJoQWR5ejF1Vm5SN2RpdFh0VU5nbTk2Z291MzVqUGhETmVCZXhjWjhZZVZmMTRVZ0htRm8zSnIyUT09 |
Please elaborate on how you have come to the conclusion that 60mb of data released from a single email server without any explanation of methodology for the selection of this data refutes any and all available data and work done in the scientific field of Climate Change. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWSUFJY3hIdmVJUDhUbTRVcEVDSVYzRVlpRUxOc1lUUkIzbFFXaDRZY1dlMFNiVGFzUldEUUNTeWwzalRNMy1KeFdSUXpFZEZRb2ZpX0ZxTS0zeTBNMEN5cjZyVV9iLTlyam5Jem9mRDlBa2s9 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzaG55Y1kzQVRxdml4US1KRS1VY1R2T1ZLZ3NPSHpIWENPeU1OdFR4bkp2N25LdE9BNDJsU3dWUmJ2SzhLSmpkVy1hYzliR1h2YTh6MzNVNktTYVBycVQ4MVpGbDVlOGRzREd2YlA3RmVnQlEwX2p1aERGN3BpN09JSkFnYUNOdVVzRFlZZ191dGR3dDBCQ3VaQXdvUldQZEtRX1E2amR6UzR5Z0U3Zk9iTlhUUXFjWFlrRE92SnZBQmM4cmVHTk1FNnc0VTBoZVctRk5oQVlTbl9ac1dkdz09 |
Plan A, we're all dead.
Plan B, we're all dead 7 days later.
I'd *try really hard* to get the models to tell me some way *to not die*.
That said, I hope we hear more explanations from the source, so we can judge their plausibility, because I can't say you're wrong for sure. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWc2JJSm9lbS1RWXcwc2tYTnNYc1RQUGxQaEZDLUFCSWlocGZqZkc0YjZ3TnBQdkRuTHFxVkxrMTlhQzdUY0FJZ1VPYlFOYmJqMWVLU1ZLcWdGMVBYQWc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzb2Z4X2JDeVNSWGR0R2pGQ05CWXBXazFzTU5sYng4M1F1TUJha3lTaTZaNXlBRUNkWWhiekltRVVSanRRUUhVRWFXSFFTUzhnUnhpTF93MnoyUDhZWXRySjJGamZUSTE0RVQzd2RXWm9xd3c2aXlZOXM1V2xnbF9rM1NqLUlSMDJUYWFJR25uMUprX09UdVR3eFNkTFpVQ1RlUmt6dTVTcFgybGNmTlo1aEZrU04yMG15NHItMGU2T3ZIQ01hbHJxRVlzUUZERi1iT2I0WlVTbG5fQ0J2UT09 |
> When a scientist tells you something is a fact
...he's being lazy with his language, over-stepping his bounds, and abusing his position.
He needs to explain that a "theory" isn't like it is on TV. People need to be adults and understand that. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWSXdfMjNLSlJPTmZXblg4SW5SOXl5aGptZkVpWldRVkk0aktXYWpERjZyeDBUbE9pcDJka0hYWGlhYVhBd1AzSXRkLTA3SkVJRnpiUEptMDJ1eXNyM3c9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzS0xwSVdyNEVibW5FR0tQQmk0c1BIdDFVSjBpT21iSDFlckhKbWdwTEVMMFdJQ3IyVGF0SHV6cTV3WGMzaFJxa0hHOU1GRkVVbS1TQTdRQ1JjOWNWd0RTNjJRT3JWbllWN0VPVXQ4ME81QlZ1SWZNVkpSX1lyY1E5aVZnUTh6dUlwNGRkX2JFVHBtY1M4UGxfR1o1ekRlSUxadFlsei1kekxUd0dGUHcyRlpGajRqRzBad2QteGFhcmttcnBKRlBlbExuem1mS2dEZmtLREQ3S0lIekt4dz09 |
Feedbacks. (Amplifiers and Dampeners) How much CO2 can the planet absorb? Will it start eating it at a faster rate at slightly higher levels. I suspect no one knows.
And the emails tend to indicate the scientists don't know either. Most of them (with the exception of Lindzen and a few others) have confidently stated that the net effect with be amplification - and refused to divulge how they knew this.
If I were more fearful of higher CO2 levels, I'd be very pissed at those scientists right now.
There's a reason why our culture has the tale of *The Boy Who Cried Wolf.*
Your fears might be correct. I don't pretend to know for sure.
But I do appreciate the intellectual honesty you've demonstrated on this thread - and I mean that.
| r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWQUxmV3JzS2x2Z0kxYTNYN3RkaHo1NTlPTkhSUWVCSlpxWTRjQjU1YTZxUEIyMHFwWW5CNmhSZThGOVk5WkFZZi1WX3FocDhaUGVpQnhQVjlEUGVOaHc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzaXFPSTVHNURLTG9PekJlcnFuaFhGN1kwQjFNdExfTjNZakRlSzlOLVB1NDhETWNzbjJCY1A0Nk5zeXVHUFZOd1NRYzlJRm04Rk9uNWxMMms1emR2d3FpUFJyemNzQm8ydHVuSXVQM3Vhd0ZhLWJ0MmRPUjhZZDlLTkJ4aGpFOURiNGNjUkd0cGd1Z29HNlYyTzF6cFlxNlo3b0xVS3N3Z3l4NnFVdzdpSzlFMC1sYWlMRnhrck9sWGk2QnVQU0JDQ2JiVjFSZkdsZzFCNVdUVGxlaVVuUT09 |
> No, I don't. But you had previously suggested that we assume for the sake of argument that the CRU people were lying and colluding. If we do, then suggesting that others are lying and colluding is not prima facie ridiculous.
I'm going to go ahead and proffer as a general principal that the greater the number of people included in a supposed conspiracy, the greater the prima facie evidence that its ridiculous, with the critical threshold being about 1,000. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWcFpiUU91SDd4VGNJS3JiYVFta3ZLdFdqd3BXQ0M2MS1WVFQtV212V3I2VnBuUy1Nd3BRaTF1WmxuRUVnYWZQNWZPWHZnYTdaUW4wRjJjWXZpNlFHWEE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzOHdLRkFqeVBFODBsVGgxMG1jdjFqSmd6MmNpX2hzNzVxLVRHRkZ3VmM4THZXdGxNWndONkV4UjFhMkxXMjBOb0hDOGNHaHJfQVFZYy1vcU1Pd2wxRjR4V0tRbVN4SUdMYjVIT2xfeXpoeW1MX1RScU44Tmg2WjRzV1dQbnh4TW1uYmtyLVhSc1ZOanM1NjViRjlwdEVBMDJDeTdZMnluQm1Qa0lsVmYzdTM2aFU5RjIxcnNOQTBMLWtpQlB3dG03ckZJR0JVM0xZS2xWYWRsa3NYbE1WUT09 |
> The point is to a fantastic degree within the bounds of usual experience Newton and Einstein agree.
This is wrong, as has been pointed out to you.
_They do not agree_ at the level of every day objects.
What happens is that at the level of everyday objects, the difference between what the two theories predict is so small, your senses and normal measuring tools cannot detect the difference. But that does not mean that the differences aren't there if you look hard enough.
Since there is a difference between what Newtons theories predict and what really happens, _even if its a tiny difference_, then Newtons theory is wrong. It does not accurately describe the actual physical objects in the world. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWajFvQmE4ekVjZG5IQkpuRzI2a1d2ZFBiVGRhUlBPWXNnRTc1dzZHbGdzYVlxbl9rT1BUYjByWVZKQ2RxcGN6Z0F6YjFOZ0s1WkxSc0N6ZHBUSko1YVE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzWnVtOVVFSnIzVFpyaGF0SWFTRUd1VHIteGc3RWZXeDlxRFNLNVJGVkRXcG9GTzBQUmhWaDdRdlN6MXhRXzZkV3k0T3lRcGxrYzlyejk0aGNNOWVrYzJvdm5hMTZCbzlzYjN3RzlFYkZtdGd4aXNDV0VjejRySjBjeDVlZXkxRF9fanluU2RxVGRhdHRrdFE1emk2QjJPQWNqbHRPTjJoUlVPd1dZczc3M2R0d1VhcldEN3Z0MElkdHZJNzZoX2t6VjYyRzd6ajE1MGViT05xQ0Vfa09YQT09 |
yeah, that should work but no matter how many times you explain what scientific theory means there's people with political motives who twist around words to fit the science to their agenda.
Scientists don't usually report their results to anyone but peer-reviewed journals. If anyone oversteps their bounds, it's science writers... even then, I think they've given up on the whole "theory" language of science mostly out of frustration rather than laziness. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWUG9YQWM0SWRucVhqSlp4NEdtNEJHMERkVmxqeDU4ckFRYnBLZ0VYT0k0RmRXcTdWLWFtTkhpR0NXNGFZTzVheW5MQ3V5SEgyMTM5R3NNM0d1ZkV3YXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzOUtGdmR1TDlnZ2JNZTJiSzlBT0pqSGhVN3l5R1hSajBBOW1xMk1maG5saE5ac2kyUk5ienRJMmx2SlBkWmZkd1EtV2xjWU10YWkwU0dSMkhSbTBLWVJaLW9idjdXSGVtSkxJNHZVYkpjc3RmUnpKai1jOU5wYlFON2lsR2pNVjBKY0hGVkhScTZPZGRGblNwelB4Vkp6UDBhMVhPdTdOVkQ2amR2Wjc1aDFSdExJNTA3TUp0aG1mYzM0NnV0OW4ta3ZHTVc2RzlaUTI2TlBkeUU2dVNMdz09 |
[deleted] | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWX25KcGMtQUs0aGxwTFU0V3F6eFJSckRhcHF1dlZPQm9LREZpRzZwYVpOZ1EyS0hraS1RaDZkOFYwSmI0THEzRkZXMVV0THoyWEJWSDV0VllqM1lWWVE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzMXBnZmZVYS1mdjhhemQ2eU5HX3RHc2lIR255dHVSa2ZwRjk5NlBrWnNEYVR4V2dsQUpiMHAyZktiNGFocmtEMFRnRDI2bTRsdVczYVNaVi1kMGo4N2RKUExMOW1pTmE0V1BqQUtnWmNmT3hsRUFUTUVpWm05RUFhQ2pYbFhtQjRBc0M3dkd4SW9ONWVnR00yTk1BVWR3QlB1SlFwRml6bl92X3dESGNKb3hXS1BVeHV3Q2RHcUF4RDlabTlqSUZMWG9XVW9rRlJRM3V5Uld1cFNBVC1EZz09 |
> the greater the number of people included in a supposed conspiracy, the greater the prima facie evidence that its ridiculous
No. The correct statement would be "the greater the number of people included in the supposed conspiracy, the greater the evidence that it does not exist." That is, **not** prima facie. A typical yes-AGW argument goes: "Your position requires that a lot of scientists are in a conspiracy. This is crazy. Therefore your position is wrong." This is because the yes-AGWer thinks the idea of a conspiracy of scientists is crazy in general, not that a particular critical threshold determines craziness. If we grant that N scientists are part of a conspiracy (with N being large enough to call them a conspiracy), then why is N+M crazy?
> the critical threshold being about 1,000.
Not clear at all. I do not object to there being a critical threshold for these kinds of judgments, but it is important to note that identifying an appropriate critical threshold requires identifying the bound for uncontroversiality. Since ordinarily the yes-AGWers tend to regard the idea of any scientific conspiracy as insane, let's call this an uncontroversiality bound of 1 (i.e. an individual scientist might be dishonest). Perhaps this corresponds to a critical threshold of 1,000. In any case, call the threshold N. If the bound is raised to, say, 50 (because we posit that CRU contains a conspiracy), what does this do to the threshold?
In any case, even if the critical threshold is 1,000 for our particular dispute, this does not by itself vindicate either of us. You asked before how the few would fool the thousands, and I gave possible reasons, some of which did not assume that the thousands were conspirators. That is, in principle we can explain why most would be fooled with only the few conspirators, not the thousands.
I think you may have picked up the idea that if someone claims that the scientific consensus on this matter is either wrong or ought not to be considered persuasive to the layman, they must believe in the existence of a massive conspiracy. What I am trying to show you is that, whatever you think about the scientific question, a conspiracy is not obviously required. You may want to look into "Eichmann in Jerusalem." Ordinary people do shocking and awful things in the right (or wrong) environment. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWNGtNLURCa2E0RzhTVWNicV94VDlJc3JKdlNSaFZZeXI2UEluVHZmQkxtaUUxNGI0SU5Ed2VQdFZld3k3bnUtYzVYTDdkQVhjVmpRUU9PV3BXT3FhdXc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzSFprNDRpLVE4THlJTTZZSk9HNTI4VThQU1NRazRSeUhpRUVxMmV2blQybGhhdFRIaXE3b3dLb2JtaS1VOWpiZk9taVhiTHF4TUh3QzNfUWZDRC1Oa2trMUtOVXhrTklyN05PVVJUVGJKclR3SFFwZWJKdXpSdnMzMHFBcUxXTzdMLWl2dFZSNGVKOUxGOElmZ090cXpTQ0NKMGUwNmo1VVFSZnVmWDNub2x4NUc4eF9qQ1BEaERXVmozeHRtWVBvZHBWRkg3bER0S2h5WVVQRDVjai1vZz09 |
[deleted] | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWOVRtLUE3LVNpdHZldE8xWWw0ZUhuU3lKeUdVS0VQYmhwc1JZR3lrUU8yYWtPbklET0pzV19nSm10ZU1SbUpTZ0ZHX3dyY0cyZGFMVTFsdy1uWjVvakE9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzYVJHazU1c2llY2ljX1J5NkF6cGFlc25jLXdHbXhmU1FDQ0lZTmZ4STN5dksxalRoZ0xfcFJmMllWdEFuVTYwVURDRUFidmp2Si1sWTVZSTU2N0ZhUXNkMmFmTnhxRVVtV0ptbWt3SWlZbkQ2TGU5NWdwNml6MjFtd1Q1NFNaM0k3bmhRWGEtMkl0X2pJMHB6Z2xVSHBFMXltemhwVE1EZXFpcUZwS29sYkNBVnVZVUZPVnJGalg2Q1p0QmFnWXNnS0M2LWM2TllMZzVLVzRSSElvWVlhUT09 |
Quite right. Unfortunately, the Scientific Community is at best a crude approximation of Science. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWWURjeWkycVRIOUdUbGo4S2hLLThocU1qOEJJdGd1cnMzUnMzbjNNRDBOT3hUbXhKVGt3dVJwVWVkamVjVkRSS2o1NGNjdFdaaEtDQnVmR0hUN3c4cHc9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzeUNZTEU2NE9abW1pZU9RLThwNk8wMXUtcWt2Rm1SbVdBWTd0STRRdjFaR3oxS2Q5Vml6ZDBGTV9IRFFFaG94YWJ2VkF4MHJPNF9iaktpZlR0UXBoRGFaT2huLS1XbG5kTnpvX3REY2hiUGNqOTJXaVFnNDlRcEdfNzBtNGVOTkI0U2Z0anM1eGJaZVRsdlJXY0I5WnZuLTN6Yk1lLVlleTRQM2pZTDBoMExjRV9lWHhyRmdSalpaaDhIREtqNFJVTjloM2tCQ1Q1dU4zTTFCMmo1N1B4UT09 |
No. Silver *takes issue* with it. Very different. | r/environment | comment | r/environment | 2009-11-21 | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVVWUHk4OUU5bHRKQmJ2TWxNYWNpcTdWX19IcmlCMXB6ODFHN2FiWHQ1a3lsTGNlZ0lFalEtOGZVMzNzWGQ1OUpTaXNhbDJKc2g0UEZjZnhnWldTaE1Td1E9PQ== | Z0FBQUFBQm9MNVUzdWhLVkh0OEp3dDloTkJhZnRmeGlNei1VTm5jSVU4NTQ3bnJjSWNxb2wyNXpHdUhtTmxPbU45LWFiUXpMeWJ1WnlHaE1mdGlGU1pLQ1M4WDRNc1hGejg4TjJJd2VzMEFSLVc0Tk9vWEVFNU9KcndEeUtwVkgwQmJiTVYzYXN2SmpnU2ZnLUVlN1pqUzQxNWdaWU5TNmw2R3BIZkRHRmUta0ttc0JuQWRIMWFIZy1sd053SWRWUXlKSU9Ha05JdGljRS1OZV9oYnZuYmhLWUwzNXNuYk1EUT09 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.