• Panel clears "Climategate" scientists of all wrongdoing
    103 replies, posted
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1&src=mv[/url] [release]A British panel issued a sweeping exoneration on Wednesday of scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate, saying it found no evidence that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The researcher at the center of the controversy, a leading climatologist named Phil Jones, was immediately reinstated to a job resembling his old one at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. That unit, often referred to by its initials, has played a leading role in efforts to understand the earth’s past climate. Embarrassing e-mail messages sent by Dr. Jones and other scientists were stolen in November and posted to the Internet, leading to a deluge of accusations from climate change skeptics as well as admissions from some of the scientists that they had been guilty of poor behavior. But were they, as the skeptics charged, guilty of scientific misconduct? “On the specific allegations made against the behavior of C.R.U. scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” said the new review, led by Muir Russell, a leading British civil servant and educator. The Russell panel also found little reason to question the advice the scientists had given to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that produces a major review of the science of global warming every few years. The new report said that “we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the I.P.C.C. assessments.” The review was the fifth to come to essentially the same conclusion about the e-mail messages sent by Dr. Jones and other scientists, though it was the most comprehensive and eagerly awaited of the investigations. Last week the second of two reviews at Pennsylvania State University exonerated Michael Mann, a scientist there who had also been a focus of the controversy. The latest report was not a complete vindication for scientists or for the University of East Anglia, which commissioned it. Echoing the findings of an earlier report by a parliamentary committee in London, the reviewers criticized “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness” in responding to demands for backup data and other information under Britain’s law governing public records. Climate change skeptics criticized the four previous reviews of the issue as whitewashes that failed to delve deeply enough into the scientific uncertainties about climate change. For their part, the reviewers took the position that conclusions on science get sorted out in academic interchanges and scientific publications and that their role in the inquiry was to focus on a narrower set of questions raised by the private e-mail messages.[/release] Honestly, does this surprise anyone? The story was pretty bogus from the beginning.
Color me shocked.
Like i've said before, it was all a manufactroversy. There was nothing behind the claims besides some demagogues making up shit and pulling stuff out of context.
Doesn't matter. Research already shows global warming is just part of a cycle, so their argument is kind of defunct.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;23182885]Doesn't matter. Research already shows global warming is just part of a cycle, so their argument is kind of defunct.[/QUOTE] no it's not
[QUOTE=JDK721;23182913]no it's not[/QUOTE] oh shi-
[QUOTE=JDK721;23182913]no it's not[/QUOTE] Umm, yes it is. The planet is constantly going through heating and cooling phases...
[QUOTE=Ridge;23183164]Umm, yes it is. The planet is constantly going through heating and cooling phases...[/QUOTE] Didn't your bs already get shut down in the previous topic? This one: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=965080[/url]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23183204]Didn't your bs already get shut down in the previous topic? This one: [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=965080[/URL][/QUOTE] Damn, I missed that thread. :frown:
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23183204]Didn't your bs already get shut down in the previous topic? This one: [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=965080[/URL][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html[/url] [url]http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/[/url] [url]http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html[/url] [url]http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=Ridge;23183685][URL]http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html[/URL] [URL]http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/[/URL] [URL]http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm[/URL][/QUOTE] 1: [url]http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm[/url] 2: Article is 10 years old 3. Blog, initial study and not yet solid evidence. [QUOTE] The primary concern now is that while the collected data in 2007 reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a focus on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.[/QUOTE] We may be, not we are for sure. This doesn't really back up your position 4. That looks questionable at best, and I don't see any solid argument in it against human caused global warming. Yea there may be temperature trends but it says nothing about them not being influenced by people.
[QUOTE=JDK721;23182913]no it's not[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/co2-vs-temp.jpg[/IMG] Really, now?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23183976][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/co2-vs-temp.jpg[/IMG] Really, now?[/QUOTE] I think Kagrenak said it best: [QUOTE]Good work showing a graph that doesn't even go until today, and that is just raw data with no interpretations, taken from a website of an organization that actually supports the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23183846]1: [URL]http://info-pollution.com/chill.htm[/URL] 2: Article is 10 years old 3. Blog, initial study and not yet solid evidence. We may be, not we are for sure. This doesn't really back up your position 4. That looks questionable at best, and I don't see any solid argument in it against human caused global warming. Yea there may be temperature trends but it says nothing about them not being influenced by people.[/QUOTE] You do realize this time about 2,000 years ago there was no Arctic, no cold weather, and Greenland was flourishing with plants and green life, right? You do realize the earth cooled down dramatically in the Middle Ages up to the Cold War, Earth experienced a cooling cycle in the 1970s, then warming now? Also take into account Earth itself causes more C02 than we do. One volcano eruption, for example, produces many more times the C02 in an instant than we do in a year. Earth has heating and cooling cycles. It's a natural part of the planet. Also, scientists have been noting the ice caps on Mars have gone through their melting and freezing cycles in the same way our planet has.
Because we all now that the UNEP is a discredited source, right? Anyway, how does he now the website source, it's on a file hosting site?
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;23184034][B]You do realize this time about 2,000 years ago there was no Arctic, no cold weather, and Greenland was flourishing with plants and green life, right?[/B] You do realize the earth cooled down dramatically in the Middle Ages up to the Cold War, Earth experienced a cooling cycle in the 1970s, then warming now? Also take into account Earth itself causes more C02 than we do. One volcano eruption, for example, produces many more times the C02 in an instant than we do in a year. Earth has heating and cooling cycles. It's a natural part of the planet. Also, scientists have been noting the ice caps on Mars have gone through their melting and freezing cycles in the same way our planet has.[/QUOTE] That's a new one, I wouldn't mind a source on that. And it's not that we produce more CO2 than nature, it's that nature can't account for the CO2 we produce. Normally trees and plants n shit'll balance it out well enough, but now that we've devastated a fair part of the earth's forests, it doesn't work so great. And while you're at it, sources on the rest too. [editline]02:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;23184078]Because we all now that the UNEP is a discredited source, right? Anyway, how does he now the website source, it's on a file hosting site?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.unep.org/climatechange/[/url] ---- Point O --- Your head
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23184086]That's a new one, I wouldn't mind a source on that. And it's not that we produce more CO2 than nature, it's that nature can't account for the CO2 we produce. Normally trees and plants n shit'll balance it out well enough, but now that we've devastated a fair part of the earth's forests, it doesn't work so great. And while you're at it, sources on the rest too. [editline]02:30PM[/editline] [URL]http://www.unep.org/climatechange/[/URL] ---- Point O --- Your head[/QUOTE] How do you say nature cant account for all the CO2 we've created, when the volcano a couple months ago released more CO2 every minute than man has made for all existance?
[QUOTE=Ridge;23184293]How do you say nature cant account for all the CO2 we've created, when the volcano a couple months ago released more CO2 every minute than man has made for all existance?[/QUOTE] Try reading what I wrote and you'll know. And give me a source on the co2 numbers, per minute more than all of man seems... kind of bullshit.
Its true. That one eruption produced enough CO2 that every car on earth produces in 3 years or some shit. An average volcano produces 130 million tons of CO2. (Source: [url]http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php[/url])
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;23185533]Its true. That one eruption produced enough CO2 that every car on earth produces in 3 years or some shit. An average volcano produces 130 million tons of CO2. (Source: [URL]http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php[/URL])[/QUOTE] I never said that wasn't true, I was saying his moronic claim of "more per minute than all of humanity ever" wasn't.
Cease this bullshit. Global warming is not a myth you boobs. [IMG]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7338/1278197928075.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;23184034]You do realize this time about 2,000 years ago there was no Arctic, no cold weather, and Greenland was flourishing with plants and green life, right?[/QUOTE] The southern tip of Greenland is green (during summer). You might be able to guess from it's name. [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;23184034]Also take into account Earth itself causes more C02 than we do. One volcano eruption, for example, produces many more times the C02 in an instant than we do in a year.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html]Total of volcanic emissions is 1/100th of humans.[/url] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;23184034]Earth has heating and cooling cycles. It's a natural part of the planet. Also, scientists have been noting the ice caps on Mars have gone through their melting and freezing cycles in the same way our planet has.[/QUOTE] That's not the problem. The problem is that we are accelerating the planet into a heat cycle faster than the animals on earth can adapt to it.
I fail to understand this whole "Omg global warming is so not true" consensus the general public has when just about all of the scientific world agrees that climate change is indeed real. Of course, this may have something to do with the 3 fucking fear mongering scientists who have made a career out of twisting facts for personal glory.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;23186958]I fail to understand this whole "Omg global warming is so not true" consensus the general public has when just about all of the scientific world agrees that climate change is indeed real.[/QUOTE] GODDAMN LIBERAL SCIENTIST CONSPIRACY LYING TO THE PUBLIC THEY HATE GOD NEW WORLD ORDER THE RAPTURE IS COMING (/caps) EDIT: You know it's a conspiracy because they all agree on it, just like darwanism.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;23185955]Cease this bullshit. Global warming is not a myth you boobs. [/QUOTE] Global warming is real. The idea that humans are responsible for it is a farce. [editline]03:31PM[/editline] [QUOTE=noctune9;23186852]That's not the problem. The problem is that we are accelerating the planet into a heat cycle faster than the animals on earth can adapt to it.[/QUOTE] That is commonly referred to as evolution, or proof of Darwin's theory.
[QUOTE=Ridge;23187152]Global warming is real. The idea that humans are responsible for it is a farce.[/QUOTE] Pretty much every scientist, who know anything about the climate, in the world disagrees
Okay lets clear this up. Global Warming is very much real, there is good evidence for that. It happens in a cycle, hot then col then hot then cold rinse and repeat. The only real debate is whether or not human activity has increased or decreased its rate by a significant degree. :colbert: This all cool? :smug:
[QUOTE=bravehat;23187309]Okay lets clear this up. Global Warming is very much real, there is good evidence for that. It happens in a cycle, hot then col then hot then cold rinse and repeat. The only real debate is whether or not human activity has increased or decreased its rate by a significant degree. :colbert: This all cool? :smug:[/QUOTE] Yeah but I'm retty sure the last point has been settled.
[QUOTE=bravehat;23187309] The only real debate is whether or not human activity has increased or decreased its rate by a significant degree. [/QUOTE] There is no debate amongst scientists, only people who don't know shit about the climate. We are the cause of the climate changes.
I disagree, I feel it's a cycle that we have sped up slightly. On the upside natural selection will kick in hard.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.