• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
yuppiejr said:
Here is the issue - the burden of proof still lies with those that have declared the sky is falling. What irritates the natural skeptics (or even the "trust but verify" crowd) is the lack of transparency in the "scientific" process used to conclude that climate change is man's fault and can only be reversed by making drastic lifestyle changes. Somehow the same crowd that scrutinized the flawed intelligence analysis process that led us to war in Iraq give a complete pass to global warming science that is equally flawed and lacking transparency.

The "science" behind mankind's role in climate change is tainted by the fact that most of the research being done is funded based on a conclusion that benefits those performing the research... yet access to the raw data on which the conclusions were drawn is not made available in a way that could clearly put the debate to rest. This creates a very natural skeptical reaction much like the lack of transparency into the decision to deploy troops in Iraq let so many on the left AND right to question the motives of those involved.

Not everyone is an idiot outside of the scientific community, look at sites like Anandtech and the process they utilize to review and present complex systems in the consumer space. I am certain that if a complete set of source data from which many of the conclusions were drawn were made available in the public domain many of the straw/boogie man arguments about man's role in climate change could be replaced with fact driven conclusions. You can't change those folks with religious views on either side of the issue but you will at least satisfy those in the middle with an interest in the truth.
Click to expand...

Not really. The Evidence has already been given. If the deniers are Claiming Scientific Data that contradicts the current understanding, then they do have a Burden of Proof as well.
 
sandorski said:
Not really. The Evidence has already been given. If the deniers are Claiming Scientific Data that contradicts the current understanding, then they do have a Burden of Proof as well.
Click to expand...

no it hasn't. any and all data they gave as proof is now down the toilet
 
sandorski said:
Not really. The Evidence has already been given. If the deniers are Claiming Scientific Data that contradicts the current understanding, then they do have a Burden of Proof as well.
Click to expand...

I think I heard two kids at the playground having a similar conversation once.

Barry "I can sprout wings and fly around the playground."

Georgie "Bullshit."

Barry "Seriously, Joey saw it.. he'll vouch for me!"

Georgie "Ok, so fly."

Barry "I don't need to fly, I already told you I showed someone earlier."

Georgie "Any other proof, video/pictures? Otherwise I'm going to have to say you're making shit up again."

Barry "Nope - I told you, someone already saw it.. you can't prove otherwise!"

Georgie "You're an idiot."

Barry "Na-na, I can fly!"

Georgie "Did your Mom mix the pot brownies in with the regular ones on accident again?"

<Georgie shoves Barry off of the monkey bars.>

Georgie "How's that flying thing working out for you?"

Barry <groan>
 
sandorski said:
Not really. The Evidence has already been given. If the deniers are Claiming Scientific Data that contradicts the current understanding, then they do have a Burden of Proof as well.
Click to expand...

Got a link to this evidence so those of us looking to verify the conclusions can provide independent analysis of the source data? Once we've got that sorted out I'd be glad to whip out enough to win and put the argument to rest.
 
FaaR said:
Also, human fossile fuel use DOES have several aspects that do impact the environment very very significantly, for example in the areas of acidic rain, ocean acidification, aerosol emissions and carcinogenic emissions. The more we cut down on our fossile fuel use the lesser our environmental impact on the planet as a whole.

It will also have the beneficial side effect of letting us put our precious oil reserves to better use than to simply burn it.
Click to expand...

This sums it up for me. It doesn't matter so much about whether or not global warming is happening. There are enough clear examples in the world of the destructive impact of burning fossil fuels (that you don't need to be a scientist to see), that restricting their use is a no brainer. Not to mention the fact that we need to find another way to generate power once it's all gone.

So you can debate the science all you want, and take whatever position you want, but your energy is best put towards fixing the underlying problem.

I've never strayed into P&N before. Go easy on me.
 
sandorski said:
Not really. The Evidence has already been given. If the deniers are Claiming Scientific Data that contradicts the current understanding, then they do have a Burden of Proof as well.
Click to expand...
I love the way you capitalize 'Evidence' and 'Scientific Data' - just in case some of us might miss the religious overtones. LOL Hey, everybody needs to believe in a higher power. The Evidence has spoken; Scientific Data want us to give up electricity or They shall withdraw Their favor and smite us mightily!

It always amazed me that peer review could be done without access to the original, raw data. I can now see that it depends on the intent of the peer review process.
 
GeezerMan said:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand,
we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous
climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of
course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make
simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to
decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest."
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover
Magazine, October 1989.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that quote, I'd long forgotten who said it. I like the way Schneider worded that - the question is not whether or not to be honest, but rather how dishonest one should be.
 
This is clearly gaining traction still in MM as I'm seeing more of it. I think some people in this thread need to offer up a little ground and admit that their wall of climate change certainty is not withouts its cracks.

BTW enjoyed the hitler vid, as I always do.
 
This is clearly gaining traction still in MM as I'm seeing more of it. I think some people in this thread need to offer up a little ground and admit that their wall of climate change certainty is not withouts its cracks.

BTW enjoyed the hitler vid, as I always do.
 
The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file is quite an eye-opener. This is the CRU programmer comments file. Here ---> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

So apart from the removal of a few troublesome editors, blocking some FOI requests, deleting emails, blocking a few contrarians from publication, peer reviewing each others papers, cherry picking trees and modifying code to hide the decline: please tell me &#8211; exactly what is wrong with our science? - Jones (Paraphrased By Vincent)

This is a dark time for science...
 
Cuhulainn said:
This sums it up for me. It doesn't matter so much about whether or not global warming is happening. There are enough clear examples in the world of the destructive impact of burning fossil fuels (that you don't need to be a scientist to see), that restricting their use is a no brainer. Not to mention the fact that we need to find another way to generate power once it's all gone.

So you can debate the science all you want, and take whatever position you want, but your energy is best put towards fixing the underlying problem.

I've never strayed into P&N before. Go easy on me.
Click to expand...

Actually I largely agree with you and your quote of Faar. CAGW worries me little, but ocean and freshwater acidification does bother me. We should be building nuclear plants, desert-based solar distillation plants, wind farms, and other forms of alternative energy as they become practical, and funding (via tax cuts and government grants for basic research) research for other alternative technologies and for improvements to existing alternative technology. The problem is that modern "greens" are opposing those same things just as strongly as fossil fuels. Today's greens are largely yesterday's reds, and they only want to reduce the US standard of living. Reducing the use of fossil fuels simply by using the hammer of government fiat just moves the energy use (and concurrent wealth production) to places like Mexico, India and China.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top