Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
This is going to be very interesting. I have to admit I don't understand enough about the finer points of climate science to know how to get the most out of that article, so I'm going to have to wait until it gets broken down and some of the details explained in depth. I'll be watching this one with a lot of interest. Thanks, Firm; good find.
I've long heard that East Anglica had problems with some of the early warming data, and had refused to release it. The rumor was that the data had been compromised or corrupted several years ago, and that there was no longer any supporting evidence for what the early global temperature probes actually reported, therefore calling into doubt some of the claims about the rising temperature in this century.
I don't know if any of this data was hacked and released, but it will be interesting to see a full cataloging and analysis.
Firm
Actually, Firm, when I started looking at posts regarding the news bias thread, I was impressed with the restraint of your posts, both in that thread and in many others.
I often disagree with your position, but you've definitely earned my respect. You say what you have to say, and why--and then stop, without the stretching and half-truths and unsupportable statements others make. Your opinions may at times point in those directions, but you won't be caught saying them. The closest I've ever seen was immediately followed by the clear indication that you were only speculating, not claiming. And you don't start silly logic loops when people disagree. I wish more people posted like you. Discussing issues with people who disagree is then productive. At least we can understand why people see things as they do, rather than just parroting left/right talking points endlessly.
I saw this story about half an hour before you posted it (it was the third story on the Times home page, just after one about the stimulus impact, citing Democrat and Republican economics right at the start). I thought about posting it myself, but didn't want to get embroiled in another argument.
A position folks should keep open is that presenting this as either/or, on either side, is likely a distortion. We know climate change is periodic. We also know greenhouse gases affect the atmosphere. We know corporate scientists are going to serve the interests of the corporation. And what the Times and other articles have found is disturbing. All that doesn't mean that corporate scientists or independent scientists haven't done good studies. Or poor ones. It does mean we've got a mess.
One problem (I'll get to this in the news bias thread, if not this weekend, then next week) is people looking only at a study's conclusions. More important than the conclusions are how they were reached. Even a perfectly good study can be misapplied by people misunderstanding what it does and doesn't say. Plenty of studies are flawed, as the wealth of contradictory studies would indicate even without examining them. Refuting a study doesn't constitute proof of the opposite. The world is more complicated than this or that, period. And researchers are human, driven by ego, job requirements, competition, personal flaws, and more.
The rationale given later in the article by the scientists seems pretty flimsy. I'll be interested in what further investigation uncovers.
Thanks, Firm.
Tim
< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 11/21/2009 10:01:20 AM >
|
Climategate - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread