Sickman Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Pinned thread?...I think that's a first for this forum...not sure I agree with the decision. Must have been inadvertent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Must have been inadvertent. Not poor judgment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Not poor judgment? Its easy to accidentally pin or close threads with the way the mod functions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Ah, ok, never noticed that before. Guess I'm being paranoid. Seemed like a really random threat for somebody to pin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 As I and others have pointed out several times in this thread the hacked emails were released heavily redacted and chopped from their original context. I would just like to ofer a hypothetical example of how useless it is to try to assess the nature of a context-free email. Here's an isolated (fictional) email we'll try to assess: Let's meet to discuss your plans on how to murder your wife. Gosh, that certainly looks sinister. It appears to have involved a conspiracy to commit murder most foul. In fact I can't think of any innocent reason to have written that sentence. Well, let's look at two possible antecedents. First: I'm over my head in gambling debts. I need the money I'll get from my wife's life insurance And second: Our community theater wants to put on a stage version of the classic comedy film How to Murder your Wife. We'd appreciate your input. See the difference? Only by having the full context of an email is it possible to understand its true intent. The email hackers knew this, which is why they expended the time and effort to comb throughthe files they stole and release only the pieces that appear the juiciest. They are assuming that many people who read what they released will be too stupid to see their fraud. Were they right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 As I and others have pointed out several times in this thread the hacked emails were released heavily redacted and chopped from their original context. I would just like to ofer a hypothetical example of how useless it is to try to assess the nature of a context-free email. Here's an isolated (fictional) email we'll try to assess: Let's meet to discuss your plans on how to murder your wife. Gosh, that certainly looks sinister. It appears to have involved a conspiracy to commit murder most foul. In fact I can't think of any innocent reason to have written that sentence. Well, let's look at two possible antecedents. First: I'm over my head in gambling debts. I need the money I'll get from my wife's life insurance And second: Our community theater wants to put on a stage version of the classic comedy film How to Murder your Wife. We'd appreciate your input. See the difference? Only by having the full context of an email is it possible to understand its true intent. The email hackers knew this, which is why they expended the time and effort to comb throughthe files they stole and release only the pieces that appear the juiciest. They are assuming that many people who read what they released will be too stupid to see their fraud. Were they right? Well, at the very least, those emails that had redactions should raise skepticism in anyone, enough so that someone should FOIA's the rest of the chain....so we can clear the good men's names.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 As I and others have pointed out several times in this thread the hacked emails were released heavily redacted and chopped from their original context. I would just like to ofer a hypothetical example of how useless it is to try to assess the nature of a context-free email. Here's an isolated (fictional) email we'll try to assess: Let's meet to discuss your plans on how to murder your wife. Gosh, that certainly looks sinister. It appears to have involved a conspiracy to commit murder most foul. In fact I can't think of any innocent reason to have written that sentence. Well, let's look at two possible antecedents. First: I'm over my head in gambling debts. I need the money I'll get from my wife's life insurance And second: Our community theater wants to put on a stage version of the classic comedy film How to Murder your Wife. We'd appreciate your input. See the difference? Only by having the full context of an email is it possible to understand its true intent. The email hackers knew this, which is why they expended the time and effort to comb throughthe files they stole and release only the pieces that appear the juiciest. They are assuming that many people who read what they released will be too stupid to see their fraud. Were they right? IMO it is not so much the context of what came before and after in the text, but the context as in the general environment and surrounding body of facts which matters It's pretty clear just from the snippets that there was a reluctance to release data and an effort to undermine a journal. Seeing the full email isn't going to change that. The important thing to understand is why they were doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Well, at the very least, those emails that had redactions should raise skepticism in anyone, enough so that someone should FOIA's the rest of the chain....so we can clear the good men's names.... I agree with you for the most part - except that FOIAs wouldn't satisfy the hard-core disbelievers. These hacked emails are from the same period as the earlier Climategate circus (which is why one headline read "Hackers serve up two year old turkey for Thanksgiving"). Multiple investigations and reviews have all cleared the climatologists involved of any professional misconduct - but the denialist camp just screams "Whitewash! Whitewash!" and continues to believe their worst suspicions. Their minds are so closed I don't think that ANY evidence would satisfy them. As for me, I don't expect scientists to be saints. I try to judge them on their work, not on their personalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 I agree with you for the most part - except that FOIAs wouldn't satisfy the hard-core disbelievers. These hacked emails are from the same period as the earlier Climategate circus (which is why one headline read "Hackers serve up two year old turkey for Thanksgiving"). Multiple investigations and reviews have all cleared the climatologists involved of any professional misconduct - but the denialist camp just screams "Whitewash! Whitewash!" and continues to believe their worst suspicions. Their minds are so closed I don't think that ANY evidence would satisfy them. As for me, I don't expect scientists to be saints. I try to judge them on their work, not on their personalities. However, there are many emails that have no redactions and the context is contained in the entire email(s) itself/themselves. Thus they can be judged on their own merit. From there, it's left to the interpretator (and their biases/position) as to how damaging they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 the stuff Will posted was from the first set of emails released back in 2009 and the context for that has already been explained in this thread. Yeah by me lol (and others). I think maybe you should have finished reading my post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Read more: http://ecocentric.bl.../#ixzz1eXvepmiP Cool, Peter Thorne! I've cited his work a lot on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I agree with you for the most part - except that FOIAs wouldn't satisfy the hard-core disbelievers. These hacked emails are from the same period as the earlier Climategate circus (which is why one headline read "Hackers serve up two year old turkey for Thanksgiving"). Multiple investigations and reviews have all cleared the climatologists involved of any professional misconduct - but the denialist camp just screams "Whitewash! Whitewash!" and continues to believe their worst suspicions. Their minds are so closed I don't think that ANY evidence would satisfy them. As for me, I don't expect scientists to be saints. I try to judge them on their work, not on their personalities. That's fine. But personally, I don't think the science should be treated like holy gospel either. Scientists are human, and to error is human. I'm sure the naysayers will say I'm "trying to discredit the science", but that's not it all. I just think some people in their zeal have lost sight of the fact that there is a lot more uncertainty in science than is often portrayed. That doesn't mean we should distrust scientists. But a healthy level of skepticism, especially when scientists/activists are pushing an agenda and a level of certainty that may not be supportable, is a very good thing for science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 That's fine. But personally, I don't think the science should be treated like holy gospel either. Scientists are human, and to error is human. I'm sure the naysayers will say I'm "trying to discredit the science", but that's not it all. I just think some people in their zeal have lost sight of the fact that there is a lot more uncertainty in science than is often portrayed. That doesn't mean we should distrust scientists. But a healthy level of skepticism, especially when scientists/activists are pushing an agenda and a level of certainty that may not be supportable, is a very good thing for science. I know you are trying to play nice here, but I have a hard time describing certain people involved in this new round as "scientists". Political Activists looks better to me. For anyone who wants a compendium of articles/emails related to the latest Climategate, here is a link below. Skeptics and AGW'ers feel free to agree or blast away at the sources. I am just copying it for people to read: Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midlo Snow Maker Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Perhaps you should allow those with opposing views to express their opinion. now a mod is threatening me for respectfully asking questions? WTF? WOW! really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 How do you characterize someone that has "disingenuous interests"?.....As far as I've seen it, every person who has disagreement, or is skeptical of just a piece or two of the overall hypothesis seems to get the disingenuous tag..... Someone who appears to embrace the advancement of science for the betterment of humanity, but who in reality is more interested in and acts out of self interest to the detriment of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm not a fan of a lot of these guys (and I know I'm not alone in the research community), but I don't know, there's nothing there that strikes me as overtly bad. I think you have to realize how competitive research is (which is a good thing). There are several research groups that do similar work to the one I'm in. We whine about personalities we don't like all the time. We complain about people we believe don't treat us fairly in peer review all the time (you can usually put a pretty good guess as to who a reviewer is in a small sub-discipline). We talk about ways to best get our point across and get it through review all the time. It's nice to think everything is chocolate and strawberries, but it's just not, not in climate science, not in other physical sciences. Peer review is messy, imperfect, and occasionally political. I've dealt with it, we all do. But it's still by and large a pretty great system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Imagine living in a different universe. The powers of confirmation bias will doom certain posters to circle the wagon. Even if Al Gore, President Obama, and James Hansen went on t.v. tomorrow to declare Global Warming a lie, most of the acolytes will still tow the party line and carry the water for them. 1. Al Gore? It is not 2006. I have no problem admitting back in 2006 that I would have believed Al Gore far more than I should have. But he has vefy little pull these days. He gets mad respect for investing so much into AGW. But the has lost credibility. 2. Hansen has a similiar plight to Gore. Anyone willing to face jail protesting Oil drilling in the arctic ocean should be respected. It should not be done regardless AGW. 3. Obama is a hipocrite on AGW. He is a hipocrite on human rights. Please never utter his name again as being on the side of liberals when it comes to climatechange. 4. Your post was the kind of stuff this forum needs to get rid of. You have almost no posts about climate and weather since September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm not a fan of a lot of these guys (and I know I'm not alone in the research community), but I don't know, there's nothing there that strikes me as overtly bad. I think you have to realize how competitive research is (which is a good thing). There are several research groups that do similar work to the one I'm in. We whine about personalities we don't like all the time. We complain about people we believe don't treat us fairly in peer review all the time (you can usually put a pretty good guess as to who a reviewer is in a small sub-discipline). We talk about ways to best get our point across and get it through review all the time. It's nice to think everything is chocolate and strawberries, but it's just not, not in climate science, not in other physical sciences. Peer review is messy, imperfect, and occasionally political. I've dealt with it, we all do. But it's still by and large a pretty great system. Good post, I know when I've been in the review process, we've also whined about arguments we thought were biased and wondered whether the criticisms were valid. Sometimes they were valid , sometimes I think they were ego driven. We often discussed how best to answer them in order to get the research published. Sometimes that included omitting things we thought we had shown but the reviewers decided we had not been rigorous enough. Once we took our research to a different journal. The best way to counter what you consider bad science is by doing better science, not by hacking into private e-mail accounts. Have I read all the research on global warming, no so I don't feel I can address the science issues. However, I do think the e-mail stuff has been blown way out of proportion for political purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 It appears I have rushed to judgement about these scientists. I was just angry. that they gave the deniers a reason to delegitimize the science where there is none. This thread has shown how ugly this topic is. I bet Watts site has multiple posts about it with hundreds of ignorabt comments. I dont even have to look. But that was the goal. If the goal was to prove the projected amount of warming wrong. Scientists would go do more research or use the current available data to look for new answers. If the answers were there they would be found. This reeks of desperation from the deniers. time is running out. The people running the show know we are most likely to see single year record warmth this decade when el ninoreturns. The Alaskan region might below normal. but even with near record snow cover the NH is way above normal. The heat isnt coming from above. I think its pretty obvious where its coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 That map doesn't mean anything. It looks data void over the oceans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm not a fan of a lot of these guys (and I know I'm not alone in the research community), but I don't know, there's nothing there that strikes me as overtly bad. I think you have to realize how competitive research is (which is a good thing). There are several research groups that do similar work to the one I'm in. We whine about personalities we don't like all the time. We complain about people we believe don't treat us fairly in peer review all the time (you can usually put a pretty good guess as to who a reviewer is in a small sub-discipline). We talk about ways to best get our point across and get it through review all the time. It's nice to think everything is chocolate and strawberries, but it's just not, not in climate science, not in other physical sciences. Peer review is messy, imperfect, and occasionally political. I've dealt with it, we all do. But it's still by and large a pretty great system. Pretty sweet post. Always refreshing to hear from somebody with an actual perspective of experience to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 That map doesn't mean anything. It looks data void over the oceans. Naw, it's just the scale. You're not going to see much of the oceans 2.5C above or below average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Naw, it's just the scale. You're not going to see much of the oceans 2.5C above or below average. You're right..I'm an idiot. I was thinking increments of tenths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 1. Al Gore? It is not 2006. I have no problem admitting back in 2006 that I would have believed Al Gore far more than I should have. But he has vefy little pull these days. He gets mad respect for investing so much into AGW. But the has lost credibility. 2. Hansen has a similiar plight to Gore. Anyone willing to face jail protesting Oil drilling in the arctic ocean should be respected. It should not be done regardless AGW. 3. Obama is a hipocrite on AGW. He is a hipocrite on human rights. Please never utter his name again as being on the side of liberals when it comes to climatechange. 4. Your post was the kind of stuff this forum needs to get rid of. You have almost no posts about climate and weather since September. The pot calling the kettle black. Mad respect for Gore? Sheesh..A top guy at NASA (tax-payer funded) arrested for protesting? Do you have any concept of right and wrong? Self-interests, other motives? I am amazed how you do not realize a charlatan when you see one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 The pot calling the kettle black. Mad respect for Gore? Sheesh..A top guy at NASA (tax-payer funded) arrested for protesting? Do you have any concept of right and wrong? Self-interests, other motives? I am amazed how you do not realize a charlatan when you see one... Is this S&W? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 It appears I have rushed to judgement about these scientists. I was just angry. that they gave the deniers a reason to delegitimize the science where there is none. This thread has shown how ugly this topic is. I bet Watts site has multiple posts about it with hundreds of ignorabt comments. I dont even have to look. But that was the goal. If the goal was to prove the projected amount of warming wrong. Scientists would go do more research or use the current available data to look for new answers. If the answers were there they would be found. This reeks of desperation from the deniers. time is running out. The people running the show know we are most likely to see single year record warmth this decade when el ninoreturns. The Alaskan region might below normal. but even with near record snow cover the NH is way above normal. The heat isnt coming from above. I think its pretty obvious where its coming from. If anything I would be interested to know why the southern hemisphere and pole to be specific has been so much colder then the northern pole. The majority of the ocean is running at normal, but the poles have complete opposite results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 If anything I would be interested to know why the southern hemisphere and pole to be specific has been so much colder then the northern pole. The majority of the ocean is running at normal, but the poles have complete opposite results. The arctic ocean area because of the sea ice decline in extent and thickness allows the ocean to take in much more sun energy than in the past. We have a buoy program up there since the 1970s showing us warming in the 25-150 meter layer or so. But this has gone up much more the last 5 years as the ice reaches sub 5 mil km2 extent with a large part of that under 1 meter and .50 meter which allows the ocean to take in heat threw the ice. the ocean is also more shallow and more containing of the water trapping heat in until conditions are favorable for it to be released. Sometimes it gets sent back out in the arctic where it is more noticeable with ice growth and warm anomalies. Other times it can be send out to deeper waters of the Atlantic and an pacific and is less noticeable. Other times it goes to ice melting under neath (bottom melt) which is hard to track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 The pot calling the kettle black. Mad respect for Gore? Sheesh..A top guy at NASA (tax-payer funded) arrested for protesting? Do you have any concept of right and wrong? Self-interests, other motives? I am amazed how you do not realize a charlatan when you see one... Why don't you explain to me why you feel Gore and Hansen deserve no respect for there passion towards the betterment of humanity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 Why don't you explain to me why you feel Gore and Hansen deserve no respect for there passion towards the betterment of humanity? So Gore and Hansen are now global financial experts? The schemes they've laid out, to try and hedge the so called hyopothesized consequences of an unproven hypothesis (CAGW) are KNOWN to them to have lesser consequences on humanity??? Symbolism over substance. All the significant consequences they assign some significant probability to, are postulates....that's it. The betterment of humanity includes doing a full assessment of BOTH the consequences of drastic action vs. inaction.....they are climate scientists, not financial experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 If anything I would be interested to know why the southern hemisphere and pole to be specific has been so much colder then the northern pole. The majority of the ocean is running at normal, but the poles have complete opposite results. The map he posted was just a 1 day anomaly. But in general the Antarctic has shown less warming than the arctic over the last 50 years. There is some evidence the antarctic went through a period of warming prior to 50 years ago. The decline of stratospheric ozone (think of the huge south pole ozone hole) has also led to a strengthening of the southern stratospheric vortex, which leads to a more insular and cooler south pole climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.