Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[Drake Tungsten]

Here's a sane take on this "scandal"...

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

[Darius871]

Darius, that's not particularly surprising. Nobody in any field releases raw large datasets, and if there's too much of it it's usually abandoned after it goes through initial processing.

Of course; I never suggested that it might be deliberate. It just points out a reason why any bias, if it existed, would be difficult to prove.

[KrazyHorse]

Again, the same is true of any science based on large sets of observations. Did the Tevatron have a "bias" toward finding the top quark? Did their data cleaning techniques somehow create a signal at 174.3 GeV which wasn't actually there? You just have to trust that the methodologies they claim to be using were what they actually used...

[notyoueither]

Yes, but these guys want significant change in public policy costing billions.

[KrazyHorse]

NYE, it's quite possible to believe many or most of the scientific conclusions without believing in any particular solution.

Scientists don't generally lie about the science they work on. Most are reasonably intellectually honest about it too (they are upfront about what they're unsure of).

Scientists ALWAYS have motivation to lie about their work, from a career perspective.

How much did the LHC cost again?

[Drake Tungsten]

How much did the LHC cost again?

Way, way too much...

[KrazyHorse]

The US got off pretty light on it...

[notyoueither]

NYE, it's quite possible to believe many or most of the scientific conclusions without believing in any particular solution.

Scientists don't generally lie about the science they work on. Most are reasonably intellectually honest about it too (they are upfront about what they're unsure of).

Scientists ALWAYS have motivation to lie about their work, from a career perspective.

How much did the LHC cost again?

The problem with this issue is that it is highly political with a large dose of fanatical ideology thrown in.

I have little idea about who can be relied on.

One side is accusing the other of cooking numbers, having hidden agendas, etc while the other accuses the first of being in the pay of big oil, eating babies, etc.

I can accept that none of it is true with regard to the entirety of either set, but what can I accept at face value? Very little, I'm afraid.

What I do know is that shutting down industry in the developed world and sending the activity to jurisdictions with abysmal environmental and regulatory records sounds just about like the most retarded solution to any problem I have ever heard of.

[KrazyHorse]

NYE, if you want to argue against doing anything about global warming you're on much more secure footing if you claim that the economic/humanitarian damage will be far lower than the cost of actually reducing emissions.

Arguing that there's some sort of giant conspiracy by a bunch of hippy climate scientists is just retarded.

[notyoueither]

I'm not arguing for any conspiracy, but if I listen I hear accusations of it from both sides. I do not know, it's that simple.

There are people like General Ludd in this world, and there are people whose research or opinion is paid for by self-interested lobbies.

I am arguing exactly what I wrote. The solutions on the table and demanded are retarded.

[Wezil]

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for it to be bad science.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not arguing for any conspiracy, but if I listen I hear accusations of it from both sides.

Yes, and one "side" is the scientific consensus. The other side is a bunch of nonacademic conspiracy theorists.

There are people like General Ludd in this world, and there are people whose research or opinion is paid for by self-interested lobbies.

???

Who the **** gives a **** what Osweld says? See above.

I am arguing exactly what I wrote. The solutions on the table and demanded are retarded.

Once you get to the point where you understand the basic idea behind the study of tax incidence I might start paying attention to things you say about carbon taxes etc.

[notyoueither]

Yes, and one "side" is the scientific consensus. The other side is a bunch of nonacademic conspiracy theorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, MIT, NASA, etc, etc, etc...

There are people like General Ludd in this world, and there are people whose research or opinion is paid for by self-interested lobbies.

???

Who the **** gives a **** what Osweld says? See above.

Part of the problem is that the science and what to do about it are tangled up.

I give a **** because much of the solutions proposed are not based on any science. No, moving industry from one spot to another is not a solution.

Once you get to the point where you understand the basic idea behind the study of tax incidence I might start paying attention to things you say about carbon taxes etc.

You're quite full of yourself for someone who has no idea what you are talking about.

[Drake Tungsten]

Is there any real chance of averting the climate crisis?

Absolutely. It is possible – if we give politicians a cold, hard slap in the face. The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – "goals" for emission reductions, "offsets" that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual "cap-and-trade" mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.

Science reveals that climate is close to tipping points. It is a dead certainty that continued high emissions will create a chaotic dynamic situation for young people, with deteriorating climate conditions out of their control.

Science also reveals what is needed to stabilise atmospheric composition and climate. Geophysical data on the carbon amounts in oil, gas and coal show that the problem is solvable, if we phase out global coal emissions within 20 years and prohibit emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands and oil shale.

Such constraints on fossil fuels would cause carbon dioxide emissions to decline 60% by mid-century or even more if policies make it uneconomic to go after every last drop of oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/copenhagen-summit-climate-change

[KrazyHorse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, MIT, NASA, etc, etc, etc...

What a sad list. Thanks for proving my point, ****.

Part of the problem is that the science and what to do about it are tangled up.

I give a **** because much of the solutions proposed are not based on any science. No, moving industry from one spot to another is not a solution.

See my comments above.

You're quite full of yourself for someone who has no idea what you are talking about.

You don't even understand supply and demand, you twit.