| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Not sure how much longer they will be able to keep crunching in the UK |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5561
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
For those that have their heads too deep in the sand, if they push a little harder, the Chinese WILL really have their syndrome:
---------------------------------------- The BIG picture: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png Global cooling and recovery all during extreme centennial deep solar minimum : Only in dreams with Eyes Wide Shut!
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
For those that have their heads too deep in the sand, if they push a little harder, the Chinese WILL really have their syndrome: The BIG picture: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png Global cooling and recovery all during extreme centennial deep solar minimum : Only in dreams with Eyes Wide Shut! How can we be sure this is not also manipulated data for an agenda? I can hardly trust any data source anymore. No one should. |
||
|
|
David Autumns
Ace Cruncher UK Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 11062 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hurrah Gordon Brown claims I am a Flat Earther
---------------------------------------- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/po...cs-are-flat-earthers.html I will wear this badge with absolute pride  Me I am a flattened earther it's Polar Radius is 6,356.8 km and it's Equatorial Radius is 6,378.1 km (It's girth is a little larger like mine) it rotates at an angle of 23.439281° to the vertical which gives us our Seasons We wander through space at an average of 107,218 km/h (65,000 mph -thanks go out to Eric Idle) in an oval around the Sun at a distance (at the moment) of between 152,097,701 km at our furthest and 147,098,074 km at our closest. (This used to be 93 million miles when I was a kid - a great favourite of Dad and his optician gag. You know the one - How far do you want to see? ) Oh yes I am completely "anti-science" as everyone around these parts knows In a nutshell what is anti-science is the application of a "Fiddle-Factor" to your results to meet a political objective. To lie to the Worlds population and to spread global fear when none is necessary. If you think 0.0387% of the Atmosphere that is CO2 is in control of the Climate of the Globe take a look at this image and and ask yourself the question again   Yours Gordon Brown's Top Flat Earther  Dave  |
||
|
|
Khyron
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Mar 17, 2006 Post Count: 103 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Please read the sources for yourself It is clear, however, that statements suggesting “the science is settled” can no longer be sustained. In an email from Mike Kelly to Phil Jones (dated October 26, 2008), we find this gem, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” While on July 5, 2005, Phil Jones wrote: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” It is possible that plausible explanations can and will be made to explain these sorts of statements. At the same time the emails do provide evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following FOI requests, tax evasion, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, manipulation of results, apparent misappropriation of grant money, and threats to physically assault rivals. This is not a good look at all. Some of this behaviour is bad form, some of it unethical, and some of it potentially illegal. The destruction of data subject to a freedom-of-information request is illegal. A daily Daily Kos article? Not a Scientific rebuttal to the evidence. (also they commit a genetic fallacy in construction of their "defense") What "evidence", exactly? Do elaborate on the genetic fallacy. Special Pleading? Followed by an Appeal to Ignorance? Not a good way to defend your position. Care to reply without citing a logical fallacy? Your list of fallacies impresses no one, especially if you simply spat them off without explanation. My reply was not a special pleading; I'm not sure of what, exactly, you consider the CRU e-mails to be evidence. Additionally, I was asking you to explain what in the defense was a genetic fallacy. 1. I'm not out to impress anybody. 2. This may seem OT, I beg your indulgence, but this next question goes to the heart of this controversy. Do you believe Alexander the third of Macedon existed? [Edit 1 times, last edit by TXVB at Dec 6, 2009 3:52:47 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Please read the sources for yourself It is clear, however, that statements suggesting “the science is settled” can no longer be sustained. In an email from Mike Kelly to Phil Jones (dated October 26, 2008), we find this gem, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” While on July 5, 2005, Phil Jones wrote: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” It is possible that plausible explanations can and will be made to explain these sorts of statements. At the same time the emails do provide evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following FOI requests, tax evasion, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, manipulation of results, apparent misappropriation of grant money, and threats to physically assault rivals. This is not a good look at all. Some of this behaviour is bad form, some of it unethical, and some of it potentially illegal. The destruction of data subject to a freedom-of-information request is illegal. A daily Daily Kos article? Not a Scientific rebuttal to the evidence. (also they commit a genetic fallacy in construction of their "defense") What "evidence", exactly? Do elaborate on the genetic fallacy. Special Pleading? Followed by an Appeal to Ignorance? Not a good way to defend your position. Care to reply without citing a logical fallacy? Your list of fallacies impresses no one, especially if you simply spat them off without explanation. My reply was not a special pleading; I'm not sure of what, exactly, you consider the CRU e-mails to be evidence. Additionally, I was asking you to explain what in the defense was a genetic fallacy. 1. I'm not out to impress anybody. 2. This may seem OT, I beg your indulgence, but this next question goes to the heart of this controversy. Do you believe Alexander the third of Macedon existed? I am terrible with world history so I have no idea, but would assume so given the information I came across in a brief search. Why? |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If you think 0.0387% of the Atmosphere that is CO2 Been over this 1000 times. A drop of ink in a glass of water dramatically changes the water. The percent of the atmosphere means nothing. I'm not going to dig up (again) the graph showing the CO2 increase over the years. Maybe tomorrow, but you've seen it many times. is in control of the Climate of the Globe take a look at this image and and ask yourself the question again Yours Gordon Brown's Top Flat Earther Dave Is this supposed to be some kind of compelling argument? Seriously...? |
||
|
|
Khyron
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Mar 17, 2006 Post Count: 103 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Please read the sources for yourself It is clear, however, that statements suggesting “the science is settled” can no longer be sustained. In an email from Mike Kelly to Phil Jones (dated October 26, 2008), we find this gem, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.” While on July 5, 2005, Phil Jones wrote: “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” It is possible that plausible explanations can and will be made to explain these sorts of statements. At the same time the emails do provide evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following FOI requests, tax evasion, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, manipulation of results, apparent misappropriation of grant money, and threats to physically assault rivals. This is not a good look at all. Some of this behaviour is bad form, some of it unethical, and some of it potentially illegal. The destruction of data subject to a freedom-of-information request is illegal. A daily Daily Kos article? Not a Scientific rebuttal to the evidence. (also they commit a genetic fallacy in construction of their "defense") What "evidence", exactly? Do elaborate on the genetic fallacy. Special Pleading? Followed by an Appeal to Ignorance? Not a good way to defend your position. Care to reply without citing a logical fallacy? Your list of fallacies impresses no one, especially if you simply spat them off without explanation. My reply was not a special pleading; I'm not sure of what, exactly, you consider the CRU e-mails to be evidence. Additionally, I was asking you to explain what in the defense was a genetic fallacy. 1. I'm not out to impress anybody. 2. This may seem OT, I beg your indulgence, but this next question goes to the heart of this controversy. Do you believe Alexander the third of Macedon existed? I am terrible with world history so I have no idea, but would assume so given the information I came across in a brief search. Why? Thank you for clarifying. This discussion can no longer serve any useful purpose. Someone who will accept documentary evidence written about a historical figure - secondhand - long after their death; but will not accept documentary evidence confirmed to have been written by a scientist during their lifetime has chosen fanatic dogma over reality. |
||
|
|
mikey
Veteran Cruncher Joined: May 10, 2009 Post Count: 826 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Is this supposed to be some kind of compelling argument? Seriously...? I think the problem is now no one can really say, with certainty, what is real and what isn't. These Scientists have so fudged up the numbers that everything now has to be re-figured and re-analyzed to ensure any kind of truth. Yes what they have been trying to say may end up being the truth after all, but then again now that their methods are in doubt, someone else will have to do the work! Until someone can document it thru the Scientific Method with accuracy then the reasons for Climate warming or cooling is in doubt. The problem is that these guys WERE thought to be the experts!! Turns out although they may have once been good Scientists, they no longer are, their careers may well be over and they may find getting any kind of work difficult at best! Personal agendas are not healthy things when they skew the Scientific Method!! The Scientific Method is designed to accept all the facts and then come out with the right answer, which is not always the answer we think, or hope it might be. Kind of like when CSI works a crime scene, the evidence doesn't lie, people do. If you fail to include all of the data then the outcome is not reliable! And these guys seem to have done that and more!! One thing as a Scientist you learn pretty early on is who thinks like you do and who doesn't. If you only talk to those that think like you do, your research only goes in that direction. Alternative perspectives often lead to breakthroughs and critical review is an essential part of the Scientific process!   |
||
|
|
damir1978
Senior Cruncher Joined: Apr 16, 2007 Post Count: 397 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I am not a fan of Human Based Climate Change theory but we can all agree that Humans can influence Climate significantly.
----------------------------------------Below couple of example when humans helped mess this planet further: Extreme weather: Dust Bowl created by drought and human harvesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl Deforestation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation Aral Sea almost gone because of irrigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea Also, the main factor in human influence over Climate or at least Biosphere (global sum of all ecosystems) is the sheer magnitude of Anthroposphere (global sum of human activities) presence on Earth. Our cities and crop fields took a huge chunk from the old forests and lakes of the world (we took the good land not the bad stuff like deserts which we cannot manage to change in good land). Think about how much we took in terms of space or resources. And now think about how much we will take in the next 100 to 200 years from now when the population will get 4-7 times bigger. Do you think WE HAVE PROBLEMS? Think about people leaving 100 years from now. What resources or space they will require versus what they will have: Human population year 1900: 1,650 millions Human population year 2008: 6,707 millions Based on the equation above (when despite 2 World Wars plus lots of small wars, lots of disease, genocides, car/train/airplane/boat accidents, etc. population increased 4 times) we can expect around 15-25 billion people by 2100. After (unless civil unrest provokes total annihilation) you can see increases to over 50 billion by 2150-2200. These people will take space and resources. Already we decimated almost all the significant wild species of this entire planet. We produce food in absolute enormous quantities and it is still not enough. When it will end? How it will end? What do you think NOW on human influence over Climate? ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by damir1978 at Dec 7, 2009 3:24:20 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thank you for clarifying. This discussion can no longer serve any useful purpose. Someone who will accept documentary evidence written about a historical figure - secondhand - long after their death; but will not accept documentary evidence confirmed to have been written by a scientist during their lifetime has chosen fanatic dogma over reality. Firstly, I said I didn't know. Secondly, I have never questioned the existence or validity of the e-mails. I believe the conclusions the deniers are trying to draw from them are ridiculous and wrong: that they are somehow proof of a vast conspiracy, that global warming does not exist, and they are the nail in the coffin of AGW. Finally, I do agree that this discussion can no longer serve useful purpose; if you believe that all evidence, existing or future, of AGW is part of a conspiracy then no evidence will ever convince you otherwise. I'd call that fanatic dogma. |
||
|
|
|