The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes. I worked as a casual carrier (contractor) for 3 months and I suspect that direct mail subsidizes the cost of regular letters and that the USPS would have a hard time providing mail service to the whole country without it. There's a reason that mailing letters is cheap and reliable compared to the rest of the world. Now, whether all that waste is worth it is a question worth asking. I would imagine that the USPS, which (IIRC) used to be revenue-neutral pre-email and during better economic times, would run a much larger deficit if there were no junk mail and it was still expected to provide daily mail service and have an office in most every town.

Its a classic example of an artificially propped up business. The less wasteful and better economic move overall is to make the cost of postage true and shift the money to private enterprise, IMO.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I assume you had to pay to get your trash picked up, right?

Yes, and it was less for me to throw it away. Less cost and much less hassle.

[iamshack]

I said the small things are things we are all already doing -- like cutting down needless waste.

 

Here is my issue with the current renewable energy sources we've thought up. At the current time they're expensive in the short run and they're still expensive in the long run...and it's not yet been proven they aren't, simply because it's the nature of infant tech. All of these renewable techs are in their infancy and they'll all need to be replaced in a few short years for being inefficient and wasteful. I liken it to AT&T's crappy network, it was implemented a long time ago with infant cellular technologies, and now there infrastructures full of outdated towers and older technologies and they're lagging behind everyone else who waited and implemented more mature, better thought out ideas...so now AT&T is spending billions MORE on top of the billions they already spent to REINSTALL the same infrastructure in order to catch up with modern technology. And it became no cheaper, as a matter of fact, it wound up costing them even more because they jumped the gun and bought into the hype and installed crappy gear just to get it done.

 

Implementing these infant renewable energy technologies will lead us down the same path. Solar panels of today will do 5% of what they will do just a few years from now, so then we get to tear down everything we built and rebuild it, because the stuff we built before was sub par crap and we hurried to install it all because of the hysteria/panic, we then hand these costs down to the consumer, and end up with billions of unintended costs simply because we didn't stop and think...we created a crappy infrastructure off of a knee jerk reaction.

 

I get it, we need to do something -- but waiting a few years and doing it right the first time won't make much of a difference is all I'm saying. Just racing to get some crappy idea implemented only to have to go back and redo it all isn't the answer.

Great posts in this thread; I couldn't agree with you more.

We need more studies so we can do things the right way, instead of just doing something for the sake of doing something.

We've seen this in almost every step of the way so far in our lame attempts to become more green - we actually make things worse at times trying to make things better because we have so little knowledge of what we are actually doing.

Spend the money now to learn how to do things right, instead of wasting massive amounts of money to do very little good.

[KipWellsFan]

If people can't make the connection between a HUGE political push for environmental measures (i.e., lots and lots of money for "study" to scientists, and lots and lots of money being made by people who invested in green energy years ago) then you're crazy. I don't think that makes the debate more or less relevant, but there IS a political and financial gain from this debate. We're talking hundreds of billions that the government will spend to fix a problem we don't yet clearly understand. Yes, we're suffocating ourselves with pollution. But we don't know yet what that's going to cause. We have models, and theories, but all of that is pure conjecture at this point.

 

And the problem isn't that we don't have a conversation going on about the seriousness of the problem, it's that the scientific community has already decided, unequivocally, that man has caused his own destruction and it's going to happen tomorrow. Anyone who disagrees with the severity or the timing is quickly dismissed, thrown into the "nonbeliever" camp, and forgotten.

 

And if anyone thinks that the government is going to fix this problem you're nuts. On one side of the aisle you have people that believe God would never let them die from their own doing, and therefore global warming is a myth. And on the other you have an entire party in bed with an industry that relies on the energy base we need to change. At best we'll get a bunch of initiatives for energy conservation which we should all be doing anyway.

 

I think it's a false equivalency to place climate scientists and renewable energy industries on one side and energy biz and their lobbyists on the other side. But sheesh, having common sense doesn't count for much anymore.

 

It must suck to be a climate scientist. You spend your whole life studying these issues, working hard and doing what you think is hopefully right. But duh, you're actually just a tool of renewable energy and your whole life has been a waste of time. The people doing the real work, advancing humanity, actually work at the Competitive Industries Institute, and live in coal states.

Edited November 27, 2009 by KipWellsFan

[StrangeSox]

Yeah that post was too ridiculous to even address.

[EvilMonkey]

Cimate change data dumped. Soare we just supposed to take thier word for it, and change the entire world's economy on their say so? At the very least this calls for a global effort to reconstruct the raw data with the utmost transparancy to keep politics out of it, and stop the data manipulation so no more fake 'hockey sticks' show up.

 

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

 

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.........In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece

[StrangeSox]

There is a global effort to analyze the raw data. It's not like the only information comes from UEA.

[mr_genius]

Data storage is cheap, there is no good reason to destroy original raw data.

[NorthSideSox72]

Data storage is cheap, there is no good reason to destroy original raw data.

Agree. These scientists really bring their research into question by destroying their base data shortly after publishing.

 

And if the data suggesting anthropogenic climate change were coming solely from this institute, it would bring the whole theory into question. That is not the case, though.

 

[KipWellsFan]

Cimate change data dumped. Soare we just supposed to take thier word for it, and change the entire world's economy on their say so? At the very least this calls for a global effort to reconstruct the raw data with the utmost transparancy to keep politics out of it, and stop the data manipulation so no more fake 'hockey sticks' show up.

 

 

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece

I will not change the way I live based on research done by the 20th ranked university in Britain!

[EvilMonkey]

The university in question's CRUs recognized by your beloved 'consensus' as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. And from their own website, "Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. " If they are the ones SUPPLYING the data sets to the other groups, then everything is potentially wrong. From readings in their emails, they had a close-knit group that peer-reviewed each other so no dissention could be had.

 

They also claim that their data could be swapped with data from NASA and have the same results. Well, no s***, if you hard code the modelling program that way, you can put in anything you want and still get your desired answer. While I have not studied their code, as it is beyond me, I have read analysis from people who do know code that said it was a clusterf*** waiting to happen. Oh, and NASA numbers show that "global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity".

 

A big problem here is that many of the groups that have done climate change modellling, etc, have relied on the data sets and moddeling programs provided by UEA. Many others are not revealing their data sources. Someone who has nothign to gain from this either way should be reproducing this work from the beginning. The CRU's have too much research money riding on it to give an unbiased answer. And with their livelyhoods at stake, you are a fool if you believe that they wouldn't fudge the numbers. The UN has too much at stake as they see this as an opportunity to fleece the major powers and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations, as if it is our fault they live in deserts and have tinpot dictators steal what little they have and kill them for it. China, India and Brazil plan on holding the "rich" nations hostage at the Copenhagen conferences if they have to have restrictions placed on them and fail to penalize the "rich". "Rich countries should be ready to contribute funds for stopping the process of forest degradation including the one in Amazon valley in Brazil and also invest in the process of creating new forests. " How China and India are still considered developing nations is beyond me. South America already wants US to pay THEM to NOT chop down the rainforest. So, who could do it? I don't know. But whoever does it, it has to be completely transparent and reproducable by any other scientist before the wolrd should be thrown into chaos for the new world religion.

 

 

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/h...sd06oct97_1.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/c...how/5279771.cms

[BigSqwert]

I like this post in today's Sullivan blog regarding the politics of climate change.

[Controlled Chaos]

The university in question's CRUs recognized by your beloved 'consensus' as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. And from their own website, "Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. " If they are the ones SUPPLYING the data sets to the other groups, then everything is potentially wrong. From readings in their emails, they had a close-knit group that peer-reviewed each other so no dissention could be had.

 

They also claim that their data could be swapped with data from NASA and have the same results. Well, no s***, if you hard code the modelling program that way, you can put in anything you want and still get your desired answer. While I have not studied their code, as it is beyond me, I have read analysis from people who do know code that said it was a clusterf*** waiting to happen. Oh, and NASA numbers show that "global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity".

 

A big problem here is that many of the groups that have done climate change modellling, etc, have relied on the data sets and moddeling programs provided by UEA. Many others are not revealing their data sources. Someone who has nothign to gain from this either way should be reproducing this work from the beginning. The CRU's have too much research money riding on it to give an unbiased answer. And with their livelyhoods at stake, you are a fool if you believe that they wouldn't fudge the numbers. The UN has too much at stake as they see this as an opportunity to fleece the major powers and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations, as if it is our fault they live in deserts and have tinpot dictators steal what little they have and kill them for it. China, India and Brazil plan on holding the "rich" nations hostage at the Copenhagen conferences if they have to have restrictions placed on them and fail to penalize the "rich". "Rich countries should be ready to contribute funds for stopping the process of forest degradation including the one in Amazon valley in Brazil and also invest in the process of creating new forests. " How China and India are still considered developing nations is beyond me. South America already wants US to pay THEM to NOT chop down the rainforest. So, who could do it? I don't know. But whoever does it, it has to be completely transparent and reproducable by any other scientist before the wolrd should be thrown into chaos for the new world religion.

 

 

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/h...sd06oct97_1.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/c...how/5279771.cms

I know this ain't facebook, but I "like" this. Well done Alpha.

[Controlled Chaos]

Carlin: Climategate Will Now Hit the EPA (PJM Exclusive)

 

Posted By Alan Carlin On December 2, 2009 @ 9:00 am In . Column1 01, Science, Science & Technology, US News, World News | 22 Comments

 

The emails and computer files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain may prove to be of some importance to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current attempts to control greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

 

This is because the EPA — perhaps at the urging of others in the Obama administration — has proposed to regulate GHG emissions on the basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports … and reports primarily based on the IPCC reports.

 

This is highly unusual for the EPA. I cannot think of any instance where the EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify proposed regulatory action in their almost 39 years of existence.

 

As a result of this EPA decision, the EPA’s fortunes in regard to regulating GHGs are directly tied to the fate of the IPCC reports.

 

Although it is hard to argue that any one CRU email or computer file notation proves the IPCC conclusions wrong, as a whole they do strongly suggest two conclusions:

 

1. CRU and many of its associates and email recipients elsewhere (who I will henceforth refer to as “CRU et al“) are very tightly tied to the IPCC — both in influence and belief — and do not appear to be paragons of scientific objectivity and ethics.

 

2. Their data handling leaves something to be desired in terms of data retention, database documentation, and questionable data manipulation.

 

CRU et al.’s lack of scientific objectivity

 

It seems clear to me that if a group (such as the EPA) wanted to get an objective scientific judgment on climate change science, CRU et al — and therefore the IPCC — might be the last place that they would want to rely on.

 

Each “trick” CRU et al used to torture their data to yield what appears to be their desired conclusions may have fooled a few more readers into thinking that their basic arguments were valid, but has to decrease the overall assessment of their objectivity.

 

Attempts to manipulate peer reviews and journal acceptances are not acceptable scientific activities. Withholding key scientific data can only make one question their dedication to scientific principles. Hiding their alleged destruction of the basic temperature data that would allow reconstruction of what they have done is almost as bad as discarding such critical data in the first place. Using data that cannot be reproduced is not very useful scientifically, or from a regulatory viewpoint.

 

Yet despite these now evident problems with the CRU et al’s data and research, the EPA is now stuck with the IPCC reports, and therefore the closely associated CRU et al’s data and research has become central to the EPA’s attempts to regulate GHGs. Given that it currently appears unlikely that the Senate will agree to anything resembling the current cap and trade bill, this EPA decision may well greatly decrease the chances that the U.S. will in the end implement serious regulation of GHGs — since, under the Clean Air Act, EPA regulations must survive judicial review of any regulations that the EPA may promulgate.

 

Need for a new approach

 

If the EPA wants to pursue the regulation of GHGs despite the weak scientific basis for it, there is an evident need for a whole new approach based on truly independent and careful review of the problem. The new approach must use the highest standards of scientific integrity, which means it must not rely on what appears to be biased research and sloppy data from CRU et al.

 

Although I did not know of the recent revelations concerning CRU et al last March, my comments [1] strongly called for such a reappraisal. This problem will not go away, and may indeed get worse if we should learn more about the CRU et al’s work. There exists a possibility that the EPA’s current approach might succeed by some judicial fluke, but the chances seem to be decreasing with each new revelation.

 

Presumably one of the reasons the EPA decided to rely on the IPCC, and indirectly on the CRU, is that the Obama administration may have felt some urgency to move rapidly on global warming control. But given the downtrend in global temperatures over the past 11 years, and the likelihood that this will continue for some time (see Section 2.4 of my comments [1]) because of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, there would appear to be ample time to start over and do it carefully and thoroughly this time — with full input by everyone that may be interested.

 

Basic problem remains

 

Despite the uproar concerning CRU et al’s data and research, the basic problem remains — the UN hypothesis that increases in GHGs/CO2 will result in significant increases in global temperatures has not been confirmed by comparisons with real world data [2]. Unless it is, attempts to decrease GHG/CO2 emissions in order to significantly change global temperatures are very likely to fail. This is the primary question that the EPA and climate scientists need to address before any control efforts are undertaken.

 

Happily, we appear to have the time to do so, and to do so objectively using reproducible data.

 

 

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story

 

Posted By Charlie Martin On November 24, 2009 @ 4:09 pm In . Positioning, Computers, Environment, Politics, Science, Science & Technology, US News | 80 Comments

 

So far, most of the Climategate attention has been on the emails in the data dump of November 19 (see here [1], here [2], and here [3]), but the emails are only about 5 percent of the total. What does examining the other 95 percent tell us?

 

Here’s the short answer: it tells us that something went very wrong in the data management at the Climatic Research Unit.

 

We start with a file called “HARRY_READ_ME.txt.” This is a file containing notes of someone’s three-year effort to try to turn a pile of existing code and data into something useful. Who is Harry, you ask? Clearly, a skilled programmer with some expertise in data reduction, statistics, and climate science. Beyond that I won’t go. I’ve seen sites attributing this file to an identifiable person, but I don’t have any corroboration, and frankly the person who wrote these years of notes has suffered enough.

 

The story the file tells is of a programmer who started off with a collection of code and data — and the need to be able to replicate some results. The first entry:

 

1. Two main filesystems relevant to the work:

 

/cru/dpe1a/f014

 

/cru/tyn1/f014

 

Both systems copied in their entirety to /cru/cruts/

 

Nearly 11,000 files! And about a dozen assorted “read me” files addressing individual issues, the most useful being:

 

fromdpe1a/data/stnmon/doc/oldmethod/f90_READ_ME.txt

 

fromdpe1a/code/linux/cruts/_READ_ME.txt

 

fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/README_GRIDDING.txt

 

(yes, they all have different name formats, and yes, one does begin ‘_’!)

 

Believe it or not, this tells us quite a bit. “Harry” is starting off with two large collections of data on a UNIX or UNIX-like system (forward slashes, the word “filesystem”) and only knows very generally what the data might be. He has copied it from where it was to a new location and started to work on it. Almost immediately, he notices a problem:

 

6. Temporarily abandoned 5., getting closer but there’s always another problem to be evaded. Instead, will try using rawtogrim.f90 to convert straight to GRIM. This will include non-land cells but for comparison purposes that shouldn’t be a big problem … [edit] noo, that’s not gonna work either, it asks for a “template grim filepath,” no idea what it wants (as usual) and a serach for files with “grim” or “template” in them does not bear useful fruit. As per usual. Giving up on this approach altogether.

 

Things aren’t going well. Harry is trying to reconstruct results that someone else obtained, using their files but without their help.

 

8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy — naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:

 

Okay, this isn’t so unusual, actually, but unless you document and describe your file structure, it’s pretty much opaque to a new reader. Still, Harry presses on:

 

11. Decided to concentrate on Norwich. Tim M uses Norwich as the example on the website, so we know it’s at (363,286). Wrote a prog to extract the relevant 1961-1970 series from the published output, the generated .glo files, and the published climatology. Prog is norwichtest.for. Prog also creates anomalies from the published data, and raw data from the generated .glo data. Then Matlab prog plotnorwich.m plots the data to allow comparisons. First result: works perfectly, except that the .glo data is all zeros. This means I still don’t understand the structure of the .glo files. Argh!

 

Poor Harry is in the first circle of programmer hell: the program runs fine; the output is wrong.

 

He presses on:

 

17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key output from the debug statements:

 

some test output…

 

forrtl: error (75): floating point exception

 

IOT trap (core dumped)

 

..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!

 

This is not good — the existing program produces a serious error when it’s run on what is supposed to be the old, working data. Harry presses on, finding a solution to that bug, going through many more issues as he tried to recreate the results of these runs for the data from 1901 to 1995. Finally he gives up. He has spoken to someone about what should be done:

 

AGREED APPROACH for cloud (5 Oct 06).

 

For 1901 to 1995 – stay with published data. No clear way to replicate process as undocumented.

 

For 1996 to 2002:

 

1. convert sun database to pseudo-cloud using the f77 programs;

 

2. anomalise wrt 96-00 with anomdtb.f;

 

3. grid using quick_interp_tdm.pro (which will use 6190 norms);

 

4. calculate (mean9600 – mean6190) for monthly grids, using the published cru_ts_2.0 cloud data;

 

5. add to gridded data from step 3.

 

This should approximate the correction needed.

 

Catch that? They couldn’t recreate the results, so they’re going back to their published data for the first 95 years of the 20th century. Only …

 

Next problem — which database to use? The one with the normals included is not appropriate (the conversion progs do not look for that line so obviously are not intended to be used on +norm databases).

 

They still don’t know what to use for the next several years. Harry gives up; it’s easier to write new codes.

 

22. Right, time to stop p****footing around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

 

This kind of thing is as fascinating as a soap opera, but I want to know how it comes out. Near the bottom of the file, I find:

 

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

 

The file peters out, no conclusions. I hope they find this poor guy, and he didn’t hang himself in his rooms or something, because this file is a summary of three years of trying to get this data working. Unsuccessfully.

 

I think there’s a good reason the CRU didn’t want to give their data to people trying to replicate their work.

 

It’s in such a mess that they can’t replicate their own results.

 

This is not, sadly, all that unusual. Simply put, scientists aren’t software engineers. They don’t keep their code in nice packages and they tend to use whatever language they’re comfortable with. Even if they were taught to keep good research notes in the past, it’s not unusual for things to get sloppy later. But put this in the context of what else we know from the CRU data dump:

 

1. They didn’t want to release their data or code, and they particularly weren’t interested in releasing any intermediate steps that would help someone else

 

2. They clearly have some history of massaging the data — hell, practically water-boarding the data — to get it to fit their other results. Results they can no longer even replicate on their own systems.

 

3. They had successfully managed to restrict peer review to what we might call the “RealClimate clique” — the small group of true believers they knew could be trusted to say the right things.

 

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

 

But the tide was coming in.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Five AP Reporters scoured the million words' worth of leaked emails and papers. They found pettiness, conduct bordering on unprofessional, rivalry, and suggestions of keeping data away from disagreeing parties. What they did not find, was any shred of evidence of any fraud, or anything illegal, or anything that would suggest actions which fundamentally changed any scientific outcomes.

 

So basically, they found the scientists are human, and often petty and competitive, but not outright fraudulent.

 

Article, from AP, syndicated to NBC.

 

It still disturbs me that data was being kept away from the public eye - but aside from that, the rest appears to be just noise. There certainly is no smoking gun here, nor is there anything to lead anyone logically to believe outcomes were manipulated.

 

[Y2HH]

Five AP Reporters scoured the million words' worth of leaked emails and papers. They found pettiness, conduct bordering on unprofessional, rivalry, and suggestions of keeping data away from disagreeing parties. What they did not find, was any shred of evidence of any fraud, or anything illegal, or anything that would suggest actions which fundamentally changed any scientific outcomes.

 

So basically, they found the scientists are human, and often petty and competitive, but not outright fraudulent.

 

Article, from AP, syndicated to NBC.

 

It still disturbs me that data was being kept away from the public eye - but aside from that, the rest appears to be just noise. There certainly is no smoking gun here, nor is there anything to lead anyone logically to believe outcomes were manipulated.

 

The AP. Hahah. That may have meant something a few years ago...but they're ruined their reputation as have many other "news" organizations. Syndicated to NBC no less. Sounds like tailor made spin doctoring, all because of some douchebag scientists that broke all the rules that make science what it is.

 

The fact that any of this went on in the scientific community is disturbing, and a few articles from the AP doesn't dismiss that.

 

That's the beauty of science, it's not petty. The fact that this even happened raises questions -- questions that should have never existed. If you want to prove something, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you don't go about it like this. And they should have known better. They set this data back years by doing this, because now people have reasons to call it to question -- despite the AP finding nothing "wrong".

Edited December 12, 2009 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

Five AP Reporters scoured the million words' worth of leaked emails and papers. They found pettiness, conduct bordering on unprofessional, rivalry, and suggestions of keeping data away from disagreeing parties. What they did not find, was any shred of evidence of any fraud, or anything illegal, or anything that would suggest actions which fundamentally changed any scientific outcomes.

 

So basically, they found the scientists are human, and often petty and competitive, but not outright fraudulent.

 

Article, from AP, syndicated to NBC.

 

It still disturbs me that data was being kept away from the public eye - but aside from that, the rest appears to be just noise. There certainly is no smoking gun here, nor is there anything to lead anyone logically to believe outcomes were manipulated.

 

Now imagine if this had been the Bush administration pulling a stunt like this...

[lostfan]

Now imagine if this had been the Bush administration pulling a stunt like this...

Hi. Welcome to 2002

[southsider2k5]

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id...8#ixzz0ZOyEadLM

 

The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

 

A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

 

The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.

 

Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.

 

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id...8#ixzz0Zbqyq0Su

The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

 

Writes the mother of two...

[KipWellsFan]

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id...8#ixzz0ZOyEadLM

 

 

 

Writes the mother of two...

 

This is a completely ludicrous idea at this time, and I don't know why this little Canadian article is getting so much attention. Nonetheless, I do think it illustrates one point. If environmentalists, and climate change scientists are even close to being right about climate change and other forms of environmental degradation, the amount of government intervention when the time comes will be massive in comparison to the pathetic and anemic plans out there today. Not to mention the potential pains as a result of the forces of nature.

[NorthSideSox72]

The AP. Hahah. That may have meant something a few years ago...but they're ruined their reputation as have many other "news" organizations. Syndicated to NBC no less. Sounds like tailor made spin doctoring, all because of some douchebag scientists that broke all the rules that make science what it is.

 

The fact that any of this went on in the scientific community is disturbing, and a few articles from the AP doesn't dismiss that.

 

That's the beauty of science, it's not petty. The fact that this even happened raises questions -- questions that should have never existed. If you want to prove something, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you don't go about it like this. And they should have known better. They set this data back years by doing this, because now people have reasons to call it to question -- despite the AP finding nothing "wrong".

Show me any example of the bolded in the leaked documents. Because I haven't seen anything like that.

 

As I said, the one disturbing thing to me is that these guys wanted to hide their base data. Heck, I don't know if they even DID hide it, but it bugs me they wanted to. But I saw nothing at all as dramatic as you are trying to make this.

 

[Y2HH]

Show me any example of the bolded in the leaked documents. Because I haven't seen anything like that.

 

As I said, the one disturbing thing to me is that these guys wanted to hide their base data. Heck, I don't know if they even DID hide it, but it bugs me they wanted to. But I saw nothing at all as dramatic as you are trying to make this.

 

Wanting to hide their base data is THE glaring example of that bold text. In science, you simply do not ever do this...no, you don't even CONSIDER doing it. Doing so casts doubt on everything you've spent time to study, this is counter to the point of science.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wanting to hide their base data is THE glaring example of that bold text. In science, you simply do not ever do this...no, you don't even CONSIDER doing it. Doing so casts doubt on everything you've spent time to study, this is counter to the point of science.

I think you and I have different understandings of "hide". I don't mean "don't include" or "don't use" or "selectively use" - I mean, you publish a paper, you show your methods and data, and "oops" I didn't put this one chart of my base data in there. Its bad methodology, bad report writing, and it makes me question their motives. It is not "counter to the point of science".

 

Now, if by "hide", they really did mean they just chose to manipulate their data to remove certain aspects that didn't fit their theorem - then yes, I agree with you.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, wait, let me alter that - in this case, they didn't even fail to publish (I just looked back at one of the articles with quotes). They published properly - they were just debating in an email about not filling an FOI request.

 

Still bad, mind you, but nothing nearly as dramatic as you are putting it. This doesn't effect outcomes.