Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Slashdot: Michael Mann Vindicated (Again) Over Climategate


Larry

Recommended Posts

OK, this (admittedly short) article on slashdot contains links to several different stories. So I feel like about all I can to is to re-post their entire post, including the links that the original author embedded in his post.

"Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, was one of the central figures involved in the 'Climategate' controversy, which saw many private email conversations between researchers posted publicly. Now, an investigation (PDF) by the National Science Foundation has found "no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence." Phil Plait points out that other investigations have found similarly that claims of Mann's misconduct took his statements out of context. 'A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that's not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that's not scandalous at all; there's always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn't a big deal, or else they would've been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.'"

Just thought I'd toss out this chum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

look, the jury is still out on man-made climate change. also, evolution is "just a theory". and if you sail long enough in one direction, you'll fall off the edge of the earth. if God had meant for us to use science to accumulate knowledge, he wouldn't have given us conservative talk radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you libs...as I sit in my media room in my new home with state of the art appliances, my AWD with ipod control and individual passenger/driver comfort settings parked in my newly-paved driveway, taking a day off from my job in the shipyards working on the coolest new Navy nuclear frigates and watching NFL games on my satellite dish hooked up to the 55" plasma through my Denon/B&W surround system with the new JL Audio Fathom subwoofers and digital room correction, and still riding the internet, I need to assure you I have every good reason to laugh at you libs and your "science theories" when it suits me..... wait...there's some kind of light flickering type thingy going on...whoa...now it's dark in the room except for the TV & PC and stereo lights. ****. Soemthing's wrong! Call 9111 we're under attack!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you libs...as I sit in my media room in my new home with state of the art appliances, my AWD with ipod control and individual passenger/driver comfort settings parked in my newly-paved driveway, taking a day off from my job in the shipyards working on the coolest new Navy nuclear frigates and watching NFL games on my satellite dish hooked up to the 55" plasma through my Denon/B&W surround system with the new JL Audio Fathom subwoofers and digital room correction, and still riding the internet

Wait, you're Al Gore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, a growing number of science-related professionals - including geologists, middle school science teachers, dentists, and the cast of the movie Weird Science - have determined that AGW is fake. I mean, how much plain common sense does it take to see through this pointy headed scam? Go Cuccinelli! Spend my tax dollars investigating this fakery (with NO POLITICAL AGENDA!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact the usual defenders of anti-science aren't in this thread loudly ignoring what is presented to them says a lot.

~Bang

I just think that the situation has been so politicized that it's hard to have any real clear discussion on it. It's really a shame too because I do think it's an important issue. It's like anything. Any important issue is going to be turned and used to create leverage and make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that the situation has been so politicized that it's hard to have any real clear discussion on it. It's really a shame too because I do think it's an important issue. It's like anything. Any important issue is going to be turned and used to create leverage and make money.

Because implementing harsher environmental regulations on big business is such a money maker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for Technical reasons:

The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used

Is there anything more important than how you came to your conclusion? Seems as if it was tried to be "glossed' over as if, but thats a big concern.

my twocents: Quite a few of the lacations were suspect at best in how they were chosen.

That and the World Organization says you "HAVE" to share data, with the CRU saying you can't have it, then we lost it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice illustration of the point. Is it any wonder why you can't have good discussion on the issue?

Ok - can you please explain to us how government scientists are making money off of GHG regulations and global warming findings?

Especially, in light of this comment,

Any important issue is going to be turned and used to create leverage and make money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok - can you please explain to us how government scientists are making money off of GHG regulations and global warming findings?

Especially, in light of this comment,

Absolutely. I'll do that just as soon as you show me where I said Government Scientists were the ones I pointed out. Why don't you go ahead and go first.

The first part of any decent discussion is to refrain from jumping to the conclusion that the person you are speaking with is out to support an agenda as opposed to just understanding the issues and why certain view points are as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that the situation has been so politicized that it's hard to have any real clear discussion on it. It's really a shame too because I do think it's an important issue. It's like anything. Any important issue is going to be turned and used to create leverage and make money.

Unfortunately I agree, but in cases of things becoming too politicized, we have only ourselves to blame.

We choose to ignore the data and science because our politically motivated "news" source tells us to do so, thus politicizing the issue.

If our politicians (lawyers, mostly) decide they know better than scientists because they'd prefer to believe in biblical prophecy as opposed to scientific discovery, or they'd prefer to manipulate their consituency rather than actually try to progress into the future, we can choose to tell them to blow it out of their uninformed ears. But we don't. we'd prefer to allow the polticizing of a potentially serious situation because it is more important to most people that their favorite team win, whether they're actually correct or not.

So when we say that a situation is overly politicized, the answer is simple. Those of us who prefer to take a side because that is the side their preferred set of charlatans has decided is their position can simply decide to stop being ignorant, can decide that this is an issue that is beyond politics, and that if we actually TRY to cooperate for a change, we may be able to find real solutions, instead of simply fighting against anything the other guy says.

As it is now, we're so bent by these propaganda organizations to rail against everything that the other side says that it would not surprise me that if a Democrat said eating **** was bad for you, Fox viewers would start eating **** just to show them to be wrong. No doubt someone will take exception to my using Fox as the example, and demand I give equal time to complaining about the others. Hey, Einstein. the fact that you even demand this proves what i've just said. You'd rather make sure people know they're wrong too rather than do anything about the wrong on your side.

One of the prime ingredients of effective propaganda and control over the population is to foster a lack of trust in anyone other than those distributing the propaganda. When that happens, and a segment of the populace accepts lies and manipulation over facts and science, things get to where we see them now. i believe that is what we see here. These scientists can't be right because Rush and Hannity and all the rest of those blowhards have spent years in conditioning people to distrust anything except what THEY tell them.

Unfortunately, history only ever shows one way to reverse that course, and it's never a pretty story.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - I thought you included both sides when you failed to distinguish only one side was involved in making the big bucks.

My apologies for reading into what you said.

Thank you for saying that. I will tell you what I meant by that comment if you would like me to. I do not think that it is just one side or the other who is capitalizing on this. I think people on both sides are making money at the hands of this issue.

---------- Post added August-26th-2011 at 03:43 PM ----------

Unfortunately I agree, but in cases of things becoming too politicized, we have only ourselves to blame.

We choose to ignore the data and science because our politically motivated "news" source tells us to do so, thus politicizing the issue.

If our politicians (lawyers, mostly) decide they know better than scientists because they'd prefer to believe in biblical prophecy as opposed to scientific discovery, or they'd prefer to manipulate their consituency rather than actually try to progress into the future, we can choose to tell them to blow it out of their uninformed ears. But we don't. we'd prefer to allow the polticizing of a potentially serious situation because it is more important to most people that their favorite team win, whether they're actually correct or not.

So when we say that a situation is overly politicized, the answer is simple. Those of us who prefer to take a side because that is the side their preferred set of charlatans has decided is their position can simply stop beingignorant, can deide that this is an issue that is beyond politics, and that if we actually TRY to cooperate for a change, we may be able to find real solutions, instead of simply fighting against anything the other guy says.

In ten thousand years when aliens discover the remains of this society, they will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that it's just as well we killed ourselves.

~Bang

Bang, I think it's an important issue. I think that because of politics, there is probably a lot of good scientific data that is going to be ignored, out of hand. I also think that it's unfortunate because it's an issue that we absolutely need to understand much better. Because of what has transpired over the last few years, it will probably be another 10 years before the issue gets it's due in the way of funding and overall attention. It's unfortunate but that's probably the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe the Global Warming crowd is broke and there are no initiatives going on in every country on the planet to include every elementary school you are fooling yourself.

We are not burning people at the stake over a pile of tires.

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/climatechange/

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

Pointing out a few inconsistencies though should also not result in having to man the tower in the desert with the mirrors pointing at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact the usual defenders of anti-science aren't in this thread loudly ignoring what is presented to them says a lot.

~Bang

heres some science for ya

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

"t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

ask yourself why there are more and more scientists coming out against AGW if the evidence is convincing for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres some science for ya

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

"t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

The work involves over 60 scientists in 17 countries.

Good. That's how honest science is supposed to work. All models should be constantly tested and adjusted with new understandnig as it arises.

ask yourself why there are more and more scientists coming out against AGW if the evidence is convincing for it?

There aren't "more and more scientists coming out against AGW." There are more and more hacks CLAIMING, for political reasons, that more and more scientists are coming out against AGW. Actual scientists, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...