Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: disco_stu on January 18, 2010, 07:41:00 PM
-
i notice that not one of the groups formed, or so called self professed experts on the non existence of global warming is related to the scientific community and they resort to pulling lame anecdotes to cite their "case".
it makes me laugh to know that the very same people that dont want to know how they put a billion transistors onto a 45 nanometre die to make a PC chip, or how a car engine management system works, or how the selection of a steel cross member for a bridge is done yet they take these things for granted then have the audacity to question the scientific community- that does its own share of peer review- and their conclusion of global warming due to human causes.
the medical community have to submit irrefutable evidence of double blind, statistically significant studies to prove drug efficacy- the very same that the global warming scientists do...to prove that it is occurring.
Yet these numb skulls get on the radio and pick cold days here and there as their proof that it isnt.
fuck humans are dumb. one day the general populous will realise that groups of smart people make this a better world and if they say that we're ruining it then we'd better pay attention.
no good saying "told you so" 50 years from now.
ok im over my rant. back to the usual DA slagging and Nasser worship.
-
"Science is the devils way to get you to turn away from God" - one of my siblings
-
Disco,
Send this video around to the dim-witted deniers.
This should help educate the uneducated.
-
how they put a billion transistors onto a 45 nanometre die to make a PC chip,
They dont.
Hope this helps
-
TA, you've been owned in every subject from politics to relgion to training to nutrition and now global warming, its time to give it up jr.
-
so how does one explain the emails recently turn over that have the top scientists in global warming trying to manipulate numbers that show that global warming is not exactly happening as they state? i have no dog in the fight but after reading those e mails it appears they have some explaining to do.. so if anyway who preaches the dangers of global warming have read the e mails from top scientists (one is even the al gore "to go" guy) then they need to see how these guys are manipulating numbers to get the money for research.. they should have been convicted..
-
They dont.
Hope this helps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count)
Six-Core Xeon 7400 1,900,000,000 2008 Intel 45 nm
-
so how does one explain the emails recently turn over that have the top scientists in global warming trying to manipulate numbers that show that global warming is not exactly happening as they state? i have no dog in the fight but after reading those e mails it appears they have some explaining to do..
anybody can fabricate evidence...
bench
-
so how does one explain the emails recently turn over that have the top scientists in global warming trying to manipulate numbers that show that global warming is not exactly happening as they state? i have no dog in the fight but after reading those e mails it appears they have some explaining to do..
there were only two emails out of thousands that were obtained and both were taken out of context
-
Al Gore got caught for photoshopping that was in his movie..hahahahahaha!
-
out of context? please ::) they were falsifying info ..
-
out of context? please ::) they were falsifying info ..
so was gore's "top guys"...
bench
-
out of context? please ::) they were falsifying info ..
2 out of thousands of emails - no it was a beat up by the media and the right-wing
-
i dont care if it was one email.. the point is they were trying to get their story straight about why the "info" was not adding up .. they were getting data that did not support their case of global warming.. asking others to "erase emails" so that they did not get read ecte ct.. come on.. that does not concern you? what other crap dont we know about that they have "discussed" and dont want you to see.. they want the money for the research..that is the motive.. global warming whether true or not is now about money...
-
i dont care if it was one email.. the point is they were trying to get their story straight about why the "info" was not adding up .. they were getting data that did not support their case of global warming.. asking others to "erase emails" so that they did not get read ecte ct.. come on.. that does not concern you? what other crap dont we know about that they have "discussed" and dont want you to see.. they want the money for the research..that is the motive.. global warming whether true or not is now about money...
no they weren't
-
people care about what TV tells em to care about every evening.
I have no tv since 10 years, and dont care about anything, why would I?
-
people care about what TV tells em to care about every evening.
I have no tv since 10 years, and dont care about anything, why would I?
you can watch the discovery channel once in a while, animal planet. lets keep with the facts, you ran from france, now you re poor again cant afford a tv
-
all about the carbon tax, its a scam. al gore even got a oscar for that doc, the same people control the oscars. this is not some conspiracy, you americans need to wake up. if you donnt, yu clearly deserve your government.they even spew their propaganda here in europe. if you cant see the towers were blown up, you re a naive moron.
-
all about the carbon tax, its a scam. al gore even got a oscar for that doc, the same people control the oscars. this is not some conspiracy, you americans need to wake up. if you donnt, yu clearly deserve your government.they even spew their propaganda here in europe. if you cant see the towers were blown up, you re a naive moron.
LOL @ all these "conspiracy theorists" worrying about a "government takeover"
The truth is the United States government is nothing more than a bunch of scared bureaucrats waiting for 5 o'clock to roll around every day.
-
when did this happen
-
&feature=related go to the 6 minute mark and see how it is about money.. there are also interviews with many former IPCC scientists who disagreed with the data..
-
Im surprised donkeykong and drchimps didnt log in to spew their bullshit here
-
i can post videos too - dealing with the "fraud"
-
Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: "Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise." The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed "our [inadequate] observing system." Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the "Climategate" bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical "trick" he used to "hide" data. Or perhaps they mean Mann's reference to climate change skeptics as "idiots."
so this is hardly "out of context" for them to admit they cant account for the lack of warming and the fact that they are trying to have e mails deleted so that they dont come under peer review.. and keeping studies out of the view of others that dont match their "opinion" of global warming..
-
Context is everything :-\
------------------
One of the hacked East Anglia emails that has gotten considerable play on the web indicates that several alarmist scientists deleted emails that were subject to a Freedom of Information Act request rather than produce them. That's true; here is the context.
On May 27, 2008, David Palmer, who is in charge of "data protection" at the University of East Anglia, wrote to Tim Osborn about a Freedom of Information Act request the university had received from one David Holland:
Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland. Could you provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence with us to be confidential?
Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and ask him to limit it....
I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible 'by the book' in this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with the statutory potential to end up with the ICO.
Thus, the same day, Tim Osborn wrote to Caspar Amman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado:
Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process. We are not sure what our university's response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent. However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential.
Sorry to bother you with this,
Tim (cc Keith & Phil)
The point was to lay foundation for an objection to producing such emails on the ground that they were "confidential." Amman replied:
Oh MAN! will this crap ever end??
Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance digging through emails. I don't recall from the top of my head any specifics about IPCC.
I'm also sorry that you guys have to go through this BS.
Osborn replied:
Hi again Caspar,
I don't think it is necessary for you to dig through any emails you may have sent us to determine your answer. Our question is a more general one, which is whether you generally consider emails that you sent us to have been sent in confidence. If you do, then we will use this as a reason to decline the request.
Cheers
Tim
That was followed by this more formal response from Amman on May 30:
in response to your inquiry about my take on the confidentiality of my email communications with you, Keith or Phil, I have to say that the intent of these emails is to reply or communicate with the individuals on the distribution list, and they are not intended for general 'publication'. If I would consider my texts to potentially get wider dissemination then I would probably have written them in a different style. Having said that, as far as I can remember (and I haven't checked in the records, if they even still exist) I have never written an explicit statement on these messages that would label them strictly confidential.
Caspar
In the meantime, though, Osborn and his colleagues had already taken matters into their own hands. On May 29, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann, with the subject heading "IPCC & FOI":
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have with Keith re AR4? ["AR4" is common shorthand for the U.N. IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, which was released in 2007.] Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
These emails appear to show that, when faced with a legitimate request under Britain's Freedom of Information Act, these global warming alarmists preferred to delete their emails with one another about the crucially important IPCC report--the main basis for the purported "consensus" in favor of anthropogenic global warming--rather than allow them to come to light. This is one of many instances in the East Anglia documents where the global warming alarmists act like a gang of co-conspirators rather than respectable scientists.
-
Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed "our [inadequate] observing system." Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the "Climategate" bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical "trick" he used to "hide" data. Or perhaps they mean Mann's reference to climate change skeptics as "idiots."
see the video i posted
-
If you can be bothered reading:
--------------------
As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.
Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate.
Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not act as if this is true, but they probably should.
It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really be happy to have all of their email made public?
Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone.
Update: The official UEA statement is as follows:
“We are aware that information from a server used for research information
in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,”
the spokesman stated.
“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm
that all of this material is genuine.”
“This information has been obtained and published without our permission
and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from
operation.”
“We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved
the police in this enquiry.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/)
-
when some politically motivated fucktard comes in to try and micro-manage your work to nit pick at the wording of your emails i can understand how these scientists would like to tell them where to go
-
It's a hoax to get people
to buy cars that works
with batteries.
I'm going with Clarkson 3.16,
and buying a V8.
-
It is real.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count)
Six-Core Xeon 7400 1,900,000,000 2008 Intel 45 nm
1) The transistor is 45 nm, not the chip.
(http://www.intel.com/technology/45nm/pix/Hafnium_in_action.jpg)
2) They dont use a die to place transistors on a chip. They 'grow' them on a chip.
Your lack of micro chip fabrication knowledge is sickening!
;D
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean its a lie...
-
bench
-
Because with limits on the use of fossil fuels, people in industrial nations will be very much poorer. I know that here someone will bring up windturbines, solar, tides. The sad fact is that these devices cannot deliver energy in the amounts and at the low price necessary for industrial societies. Nuclear power can, but people are needlessly in fear of the technology.
-
"Science is the devils way to get you to turn away from God" - one of my siblings
LOL!
-
Anyone who buys this scam has no idea of what kind of money can be made by parties instigating this bullshit. Just one example read into the carbon trading scam set-up by the wallstreet boys - sometimes i am shocked at hows stupid our leaders really are.
Recent article showing more bull: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece)
Any btw temperatures actually declined last few years which was not accounted for by any scientific model proposed by the so called experts on global warming. Not one model predicted any decline in temperatures - what the fuck does that tell you.
Temperature is based on so many factors and so many variables it is impossible to have any conclusive evidence. They cant predict the fucking weather yet there predicting 50 years into the future - pathetic anyone buys this bull.
-
i notice that not one of the groups formed, or so called self professed experts on the non existence of global warming is related to the scientific community and they resort to pulling lame anecdotes to cite their "case".
it makes me laugh to know that the very same people that dont want to know how they put a billion transistors onto a 45 nanometre die to make a PC chip, or how a car engine management system works, or how the selection of a steel cross member for a bridge is done yet they take these things for granted then have the audacity to question the scientific community- that does its own share of peer review- and their conclusion of global warming due to human causes.
the medical community have to submit irrefutable evidence of double blind, statistically significant studies to prove drug efficacy- the very same that the global warming scientists do...to prove that it is occurring.
Yet these numb skulls get on the radio and pick cold days here and there as their proof that it isnt.
fuck humans are dumb. one day the general populous will realise that groups of smart people make this a better world and if they say that we're ruining it then we'd better pay attention.
no good saying "told you so" 50 years from now.
ok im over my rant. back to the usual DA slagging and Nasser worship.
Stick to felating cocks in a studio 54 cubicle, my friend.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
Climate science has always been a 'marginal' science attracting bottom of the barrel types.
-
Believing in man-made global warming is akin to believing in Santa Claus. ::)