dabize Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 seriously? so I work in scientific publishing, personally know many of the people whose emails were published in climategate 1 and 2, I am up to speed on a lot of the current science, and I get threatened for asking questions asking for validation of unsubstantiated claims, and this nonsense gets green-lighted? Of course. Anyone can see you are a socialist, with all that elitist knowledge and links to people that red-blooded Americans KNOW are nefarious (they wrote those emails, didn't they? - no smoke without fire). And socialists don't have rights - that wouldn't be democratic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Seriously, can we get these degenerates out of here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 What are you talking about? Funding is way more available for AGW research compared to many other areas of science. I didn't mean limited relative to other areas of science I meant limited relative to the other trillions of dollars of government spending. It's makes zero sense that in order to fund alt energy we have to cut AGW research instead of the other 99.9999% of the federal budget. Unless of course you are just looking for a political driven reason for cutting funding to AGW research because you don't like it. And AGW does have somewhat limited funding at times, often for politically driven reasons. There is a HUGE need for better detection systems which the government is not willing to fund and which are often blocked not out of fiscal responsibility but because certain members of government will block anything related to AGW research simply because they don't believe in AGW. Just a few examples: -better OHC detection system -icesat's replacement should have been launched ages ago, before icesat failed -better remote sensing of things like cloud cover etc. -paleoclimate research could have been done much faster with more funding, and there is still room for improvement a lot of the times scientists have been forced to cut corners with technology which leads to disjointed data sets that are incomplete spatially and or temporally and require calibration (esp. true of satellite data). We have the ability to remotely detect much more information about our atmosphere and the changes taking place than we have thus far been willing to actually take action on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 That being said, it seems that 4 out of every 5 positions in atmospheric sciences research are for climate, there's surely no shortage of money, and if there is, it's the most inefficient field in the physical sciences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 That being said, it seems that 4 out of every 5 positions in atmospheric sciences research are for climate, there's surely no shortage of money, and if there is, it's the most inefficient field in the physical sciences. I've heard some in the field complain that nobody wants to do the dirty work of data collection any more so a lot of what ends up happening is finding slightly new ways to do reanalysis of data collected by other people. What we really need is not more PHDs but a serious funding effort to bolster our remote sensing systems and other detection systems. Instead of putting so much effort into trying to utilize shoddy data.. we need to put the funding in for satellites and buoys etc. to get solid consistent data to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 All things considered, you should be pretty happy with the money you've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 That being said, it seems that 4 out of every 5 positions in atmospheric sciences research are for climate, there's surely no shortage of money, and if there is, it's the most inefficient field in the physical sciences. I suspect it is going to be an active area of atmospheric science, given the AGW-adjusted outlook. Not sure how that makes it "inefficient". It's IMPORTANT. Also, the idiotic stuff said on this board by lots of people with Met tags tells me that remedial education is in order for many in meteorology degree programs. That'll take some staffing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I suspect it is going to be an active area of atmospheric science, given the AGW-adjusted outlook. Not sure how that makes it "inefficient". It's IMPORTANT. inefficient compared to the budgets other disciplines have to work with, yes And this is just my opinion, being tacitly aware of the research funding situation in meteorology. I've searched around on NSF's website, but I don't see the funding breakdown within a discipline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 inefficient compared to the budgets other disciplines have to work with, yes And this is just my opinion, being tacitly aware of the research funding situation in meteorology. I've searched around on NSF's website, but I don't see the funding breakdown within a discipline Yeah, getting that info from the NIH is easier, with 21 institutes. The NIA (Alzheimer's research etc.) has been funding only the top scoring 3% of grants for a while now. It's hardly worth bothering unless you have some kind of angle+channel. Much better for cancer, not sure why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCNYILWX Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 uh, all you did was cite denier sites. how is that a scientific refutation of the issues in the first post? The easiest way to not respond is resort to calling CAGW skeptics deniers and wiping your hands of it. You couldn't just hold your nose and respond to the points made in the posts? The first one in particular, the email thread shows that behind the scenes, several climate scientists involved have very serious misgivings with paleoclimatology temperature reconstructions, and yet in public, and on this thread we hear the "peer reviewed" studies featuring them are unassailable in terms of their validity and are accurate in their representations. I also noticed that no one else cared to respond to the points made in the links, so I guess everyone thinks the best way to deal with arguments they disagree with is to ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 The easiest way to not respond is resort to calling CAGW skeptics deniers and wiping your hands of it. You couldn't just hold your nose and respond to the points made in the posts? The first one in particular, the email thread shows that behind the scenes, several climate scientists involved have very serious misgivings with paleoclimatology temperature reconstructions, and yet in public, and on this thread we hear the "peer reviewed" studies featuring them are unassailable in terms of their validity and are accurate in their representations. I also noticed that no one else cared to respond to the points made in the links, so I guess everyone thinks the best way to deal with arguments they disagree with is to ignore them. If you have evidence of foul play with peer reviewed papers. Don't link us. Present the research here. That is how it is done here. We have had may people come here offering links and many many times it's bunk. I am personally interested in what you are saying. But would request you make the argument here and use the link for a source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 The easiest way to not respond is resort to calling CAGW skeptics deniers and wiping your hands of it. You couldn't just hold your nose and respond to the points made in the posts? The first one in particular, the email thread shows that behind the scenes, several climate scientists involved have very serious misgivings with paleoclimatology temperature reconstructions, and yet in public, and on this thread we hear the "peer reviewed" studies featuring them are unassailable in terms of their validity and are accurate in their representations. I also noticed that no one else cared to respond to the points made in the links, so I guess everyone thinks the best way to deal with arguments they disagree with is to ignore them. Why would anyone in science or interested in the science of AGW waist their time pondering the outpouring of issues raised by blog sites authored by folks with a clear agenda and filled with opinions residing outside the scientific literature? Let them bring their concerns to the mainstream of science and address their issues in the manner appropriate to proper protocol. If after proper scrutiny these issues entertain valid concern, let them enter the mainstream scientific literature. Existing as they do on blog sites fails the sniff test. There is no constraint on what they can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I've heard some in the field complain that nobody wants to do the dirty work of data collection any more so a lot of what ends up happening is finding slightly new ways to do reanalysis of data collected by other people. What we really need is not more PHDs but a serious funding effort to bolster our remote sensing systems and other detection systems. Instead of putting so much effort into trying to utilize shoddy data.. we need to put the funding in for satellites and buoys etc. to get solid consistent data to begin with. Divert some funding to time travel. This way you can go back in time and get real data instead of concocting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Divert some funding to time travel. This way you can go back in time and get real data instead of concocting it. hohoho you are a clever one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Divert some funding to time travel. This way you can go back in time and get real data instead of concocting it. Grow up. We are trying to discuss a serious problem Comments such as yours are pure trolling and should be deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Divert some funding to time travel. This way you can go back in time and get real data instead of concocting it. That was great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 That was great! If this is like rooting for (or against) the Yankees for you, you should go somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Divert some funding to time travel. This way you can go back in time and get real data instead of concocting it. another troll against Global Warming. It is amazing, one after another comes. As soon as one gets the boot, another shows up on his heels. Like Clock Work. Let's try to stick to science. I am sick of this trolling. It needs to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPizz Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 If this is like rooting for (or against) the Yankees for you, you should go somewhere else. I found it funny, mind your own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 another troll against Global Warming. It is amazing, one after another comes. As soon as one gets the boot, another shows up on his heels. Like Clock Work. Let's try to stick to science. I am sick of this trolling. It needs to go. Friv, did any of the deleted emails show the Arctic ice rebound that is currently occurring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 another troll against Global Warming. It is amazing, one after another comes. As soon as one gets the boot, another shows up on his heels. Like Clock Work. Let's try to stick to science. I am sick of this trolling. It needs to go. Kind of makes you wonder if there is some sort of behind the scene organized operation sending them here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Kind of makes you wonder if there is some sort of behind the scene organized operation sending them here! If it makes your dying movement feel better to call skeptics trolls and dismiss them, feel free to do so. The release of these emails has been of great consequence, no matter which side you agree with. If the likes of you and other "super heros" on this website believe in your cause, time to get off your computers and out of this forum and really do something to boost life into apocalyptic AGW. You are not convincing newcomers on this forum. Global cooling to global warming to climate change. How can the public be confident when this movement can't pick a name and stick with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Friv, did any of the deleted emails show the Arctic ice rebound that is currently occurring? Another strawman, or is that troll? What ice rebound? The damn ice has been on the decline for decades and the trend continues, just as it does for land, sea and atmospheric temperatures and sea rise. Cut the crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Another strawman, or is that troll? What ice rebound? The damn ice has been on the decline for decades and the trend continues, just as it does for land, sea and atmospheric temperature and sea rise. Cut the crap. Just out of curiosity, how close are we now to the norm in the Arctic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Just out of curiosity, how close are we now to the norm in the Arctic? Uh, not very close? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 If it makes your dying movement feel better to call skeptics trolls and dismiss them, feel free to do so. The release of these emails has been of great consequence, no matter which side you agree with. If the likes of you and other "super heros" on this website believe in your cause, time to get off your computers and out of this forum and really do something to boost life into apocalyptic AGW. You are not convincing newcomers on this forum. Global cooling to global warming to climate change. How can the public be confident when this movement can't pick a name and stick with it? Being a skeptic is fine provided you discuss the science rather than promote conspiracies and engage in name calling eg. "super heros" as your primary function here. Convincing anyone? Are you kidding me? There is no convincing those who wish to bandy about conspiracy theories and who's basis is in politics rather than the science. Your last sentence is a prime example. Who the hell do you think you're kidding. And BTW, it's not a movement...it's the science of global warming and climate change. The IPCC was never the IPGC or IPGW. Cut the crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Just out of curiosity, how close are we now to the norm in the Arctic? You apparently can not grasp the concept of a long term trend. Where the ice extent is today is irrelevant if that is what you are referring to. The mass of ice has been on the decline for decades.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Being a skeptic is fine provided you discuss the science rather than promote conspiracies and engage in name calling eg. "super heros" as your primary function here. Convincing anyone? Are you kidding me? There is no convincing those who wish to bandy about conspiracy theories and who's basis is in politics rather than the science. Your last sentence is a prime example. Who the hell do you think you're kidding. And BTW, it's not a movement...it's the science of global warming and climate change. The IPCC was never the IPGC or IPGW. Cut the crap. So you've given up? Also, cut the conspiracy theory crap. You're the one bringing up these terms, not us. It was a mistake goading you. You are grasping for straws on the waning moments of the latest environmental craze. The original, good environmentalists like Stewart Brand abandoned this along time ago. The politics are definitely there, just they are much clearer on the AGW side of the argument. You won't believe me, but that's only because what you see as science at times might be something else. Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Honestly I don't see anything damning about the emails at all other than occasional poor ethics and some immature behavior. I haven't seen one adequate example of "fraud" or anything close to it, same with the last leak. It's things like this that taint the skeptic side in a negative tone and really take away from proper scientific debate which is what we should do more of in my opinion. I'm personally tired of attacks on both sides, their funding sources, political motives, the name calling, black-balling in journals, etc. Is this what climate science has turned into? Why can't we debate rationally for once and get along at least somewhat? I really do not like these "scientists" at all but illegally hacking and forming snippets of their emails to make them look bad is quite disappointing to me. I read all those emails and believe me I was hoping to find obvious fraud and manipulation, as I don't agree with their opinions, but there just isn't fraud any there, and if there is fraud going on you can't tell since the statements were cherry picked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Honestly I don't see anything damning about the emails at all other than occasional poor ethics and some immature behavior. I haven't seen one adequate example of "fraud" or anything close to it, same with the last leak. It's things like this that taint the skeptic side in a negative tone and really take away from proper scientific debate which is what we should do more of in my opinion. I'm personally tired of attacks on both sides, their funding sources, political motives, the name calling, black-balling in journals, etc. Is this what climate science has turned into? Why can't we debate rationally for once and get along at least somewhat? I really do not like these "scientists" at all but illegally hacking and forming snippets of their emails to make them look bad is quite disappointing to me. I read all those emails and believe me I was hoping to find obvious fraud and manipulation, as I don't agree with their opinions, but there just isn't fraud any there, and if there is fraud going on you can't tell since the statements were cherry picked. If you really think there is nothing wrong when the DOE and CRU cooperate to block FOIA requests, then I don't know what you think is bad...When money is taxed out of willing and unwilling citizens to fund research for the greater good, the public should be entitled to know what is happening and how it happened. There's really nothing left to be said on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.