Go to ADMIT GLOBAL WARMING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
- Add a comment
- Go to HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS SAY, WHEN . . .
Thank you for telling the truth. I get so frustrated with people who deny global warming! But they are generally also the same people who thought Bush was a good leader, lol.
posted by
liberalady
on December 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Posted by Corbin_Dallas
On the first, point, I've already addressed that. Many sets of contradicting data come from agencies, etc., that are funded by ExxonMobil (and probably others of like mind), with the aim of concocting spurious data. As such, it should be ignored.
On the second point, let me go ahead and show some of the quotes your friends used to make an attempt at debunking all the facts that tell us that indeed, Global Warming is real:
As you read the programmer's comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says.
- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)
- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)
- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)
- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)
- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)
- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)
- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)
- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)
- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)
- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)
- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)
- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).
- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)
The big question on this one is "What the hell does this have to do with the data?" It's just a programmer with a huge mess of new files. He's frustrated, trying to figure them out and enter them into the database. This does nothing to incriminate the data.
Third point -- I read the article referenced. The first part is conclusions of an obviously biased commentator -- not even a reporter -- and there is very little information about any of the of the articles in question, so we don't know what they said. They might certainly have pure hokum. They might not have -- but there is no way of knowing. All we have is, as I said, the OPINION of a biased commentator.
On the last point -- I don't know what's incriminating about CRU's actions. They take the data, analyze it, then draw conclusions. They don't keep it. What's wrong with that? It is possible that the data is elsewhere, like the sources. CRU seems to be simply a unit that analyzes and reports the results of the data collected, not that keeper of the data.
Again, if we saw the data and analysis by a professional, then maybe we could reach a reasonable conclusion as to whether the conclusions reached by CRU were flawed.
Again, let me refer you to the article referenced where they refer to "an API (American Petroleum Institute) memo outlining a strategy to invest millions to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences.” The document stated: “Victory will be achieved when…recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” It’s hard to resist a comparison with a famous Brown and Williamson tobacco company memo from the late 1960s, which observed: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.'"
This is exactly what is happening here.
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 2, 2009 at 7:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Since we’re on the topic, let me summarize Climategate in four basic easy-to-understand elements.
1. Climate scienticians conspired to exclude temperature data that contradicted Global Warming from their “climate models.”
2. The computer models were set up with a bias to show Global Warming regardless of the data that were put in.
3. Climate scienticians conspired to circumvent the peer review process by steering papers toward friendly reviewers, and plotting to remove skeptics from the peer review process.
4. Climate scienticians conspired to destroy data rather than share it with potential skeptics.
These so-called scientists behaved more like Scientology lawyers shredding incriminating documents than dispassionate, objective observers simply going where the facts led them.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 2, 2009 at 5:32 AM
| link to this | reply