Hooray for Hackers!!

[37fleetwood]

I consider myself vindicated!
read this report, and then if you don't believe it, try Google and read the article of your choice.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17202

[TheAsterisk!]

Well, yeah. Environmental science isn't all growed up yet, not unlike meteorology.
We shouldn't have needed to reference some shadowy hacker, though, to see that global warming has never really gotten beyond being a good hypothesis.

The problem with data isn't conspiracy, though it is manipulated. See, many of the land based stations that were in the countryside when first setup are now in or much nearer cities, which are always warmer, what with their cars and buildings (generators, heating) and so many people (who all produce heat)- and the asphalt, which absorbs heat and radiates it back pretty efficiently due to its color. So, to try to account for this change, scientists must readjust the data to what it would be like for the original countryside setting.
Trouble is, no one really knows how to do that, so it becomes estimation fairly quickly.

Computers and mathematical models are laughable for such a project, too, as they don't model fluid motion terribly well, beyond simplified scenarios (and I mean really simplified- regular geometric shapes like spheres, ideal gas, etc.). Heck, we can't even test aircraft models on computer reliably without real trials.
What climatologists try to do, though, is to model fluid motion, much of it turbulent (jargon for tumbly, messy and hard to predict movement of a fluid) interacting with more turbulent fluid. The whole atmosphere is turbulent, the whole of our oceans are turbulent, and they interact with one another- nevermind the different layers, currents and varied external events (the sun being the most common and prominent).
The models are hogwash.

Really, though, the social aspects of global warming scare me more than any poor science. It's treated like Lysenkoism-Lite much of the time, in that whoever raises questions is ridiculed, marginalized and then dismissed as a lunatic, in the same class as people who live in constant fear of el chupacabras.
I've yet to find a political or social figure who can justify global warming as one would in science (applied math + applied logic + empirical evidence) rather than with an appeal to authority ("Dr. Whosthisguy, who is the most qualified in his field, said so, so it must be true!").
And then, of course, we get this "There's a consensus" crap- Consensus has nothing to do with science. Science is a meritocracy, in which the soundest explanations triumph, not a democracy which favors popularity. The consensus argument is irrelevant, no matter whether it is true or not.

Global warming is as good a work of science as SETI, and I mean that as no compliment.


Oh, crap- here I am rambling again, on something else polarized... I need to learn to be apathetic once in a while, just for some relaxation.

[Sylvander]

Thank you for that.

I'd like to hear you say more, not less.

[Aitch]

Oh....does that mean the Earth isn't flat anymore?

Even the reported story is corrupt data....

'Some corrupt data wasn't included in a series of results, therefore the results are wrong', is no way forward - they may have been naive in not reporting that they hadn't included the data, but that doesn't make the counter argument true.....

There is a principle of weight attributable to evidence, but ethically, scientists are supposed to include the erroneous/insignificant and corrupt data

....with a footnote of explanation.....

so why a panic cover-up..... perhaps it was more to do with funding & kudos....?

Aitch

[disciple]

IIRC the flat earth was a 19th century hoax... but was pretending to be religion or history, unlike the global warming hoax which pretends to be science.

[thane]

The lay person has to rely on expert consensus in highly specialized subjects. There's no way he can evaluate the evidence because to do so takes knowledge he will never have time to acquire.

Unless you're a climate expert, you have no rational basis for even having an opinion on global warming. The expert consensus is that it's happening, in part as a result of human activity. Deal with it.

I don't think any scientist makes money off predicting global warming either. The opposite is more likely; big money guys would rather the whole issue went away so they can keep on with business as usual.

edit: Make no mistake, I'd love it if global warming wasn't an issue too. My fear is that besides the impact of disease and rising sea levels, it could severely limit global economic growth and leave billions trapped in poverty. But wishing it away doesn't help.

[Flash]

The lay person has to rely on expert consensus in highly specialized subjects. There's no way he can evaluate the evidence because to do so takes knowledge he will never have time to acquire.

Unless you're a climate expert, you have no rational basis for even having an opinion on global warming....

Bull**it. There's plenty of data for the "lay" person who keeps his eyes open and his brain engaged (which is all a scientist does.) For instance, I noticed many years ago, before global warming became a big deal, that there were considerably more record highs set every year than record lows. You can easily check that out for yourself. What other explanation can you give for this trend than that the climate is getting hotter?

Of course there are questions about the location of the measuring station and accuracy of the thermometers used, but the trend seems to hold no matter where you look, at least in the U.S.. Also, a lot of glaciers seem to be melting. How do you explain that, except that the climate is getting warmer where they are?

[disciple]

Just to clarify, when I say "global warming hoax" I don't mean to imply specifically that the globe is not warming... I haven't really looked into that.

[37fleetwood]

I don't think any scientist makes money off predicting global warming either. The opposite is more likely; big money guys would rather the whole issue went away so they can keep on with business as usual.

I think you're being naive, first for the actual scientists there are speaking engagements, appearances on news programs, etc., etc., and let's not forget the hundred million or more Algore has milked off unsuspecting dupes buying his carbon credits. in fact ask the people of Britain where the money for their cap and trade laws go to, that should be a pretty big chunk of change! if we pass cap and trade here, someone is going to get awfully rich, and I'm sure there will be something in it in the form of funding for any who have helped promote the cause.

[thane]

Hey Flash. Like they say, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I said I accept the scientific consensus on global warming. I couldn't arrive at a better idea on my own no matter how much data I looked at. And neither could you.

Most climate scientists think global warming is real and that humans are in part responsible for it. They don't get any more media attention (or funding) than do the relatively few scientists who disagree. To think otherwise is naive.

[Sylvander]

I've always been skeptical about Global Warming; remained to be be convinced, wouldn't/won't believe it until I see some real evidence.
This is from way back in the 70's [1970's not 1870's ].

My son has a degree in Physics with Environmental Science, and teaches Physics.
He is TOTALLY convinced.
He goes on EVIDENCE not theories, and he KNOWS what the evidence is.
I remember he once took the time to give an argument as to why it was true/real.
It was the only thing I'd ever heard that sounded convincing.
Now forgotten what it was he said.

[sikpuppy]

IIRC the flat earth was a 19th century hoax... but was pretending to be religion or history, unlike the global warming hoax which pretends to be science.

Sounds like the Hubbard cultists.

[bugman]

so fleetwood, why is the polar ice cap shrinking?

if your answer does not cover the other related phenomena, let me know and i will ask more questions until we've got it all . . .

[Flash]

Hey Flash. Like they say, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I said I accept the scientific consensus on global warming. I couldn't arrive at a better idea on my own no matter how much data I looked at. And neither could you.

Most climate scientists think global warming is real and that humans are in part responsible for it. They don't get any more media attention (or funding) than do the relatively few scientists who disagree. To think otherwise is naive.

I must take exception to your apparent deification of scientists. The attitude that the common man can't figure anything important out for himself but should leave it up to specialists and experts seems to me to be about the same as the attitude that how life should be lived is a question that must be left up to the High Priests. While I'm on the subject I'd like to point out that experts in economics and banking caused the Great Recession. At a minimum they should have become alarmed enough to put the brakes on much sooner than they did, but instead they sat back and did nothing. Very few non-bankers objected, I suppose because everyone seemed to be making money without doing anything to earn it, even though you don't need to be an expert to see that such a condition is unnatural and cannot go on for long.

Same with the idea of endless growth, whether you're talking about the human population of Earth or some economic indicator such as oil consumption. It doesn't take an expert to see that it has to stop sometime, and the farther we let it go before it stops, the bigger will be the crash at the end.

Incidentally, there are other reasons besides the possibility that we might cook ourselves to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The oceans are becoming more acidic, for one, from soaking up all that CO2. How long can that go on, and what will be the consequences?

[Lobster]

I like our planet
Mainly because it is the only one I have been on.

And She, Gia, will adjust and survive
and human beings might too.

Many of us live as separated
rather than integrated to our environment

Time to go hug a tree, whilst they are still available . . .

[prehistoric]

After all the shouting and confusion, it is hard to find simple, easy to understand, facts you can interpret without an advanced degree. I think I have noticed one that gets overlooked or underestimated. There is a simple measurement which confirms global warming, though not perhaps as some imagine it.

Global mean sea levels are rising at about 3 mm/year. Since all land can hardly be sinking, this means there is a larger volume of water in the oceans. There are only two large sources of this change in volume: melting of ice that was not floating to begin with, thermal expansion of sea water.

Simply moving continents from one place on the surface to another does not change volume of ocean basins. Collisions between tectonic plates raise mountains, and reduce the volume of ocean basins. The Andes and Himalayas are undergoing this kind of uplift. Spreading along rifts on land can reduce the volume of ocean basins. The great rift valley of Africa is the only major source of such spreading on land. Without melting ice and warming water, the present configuration of land masses should lead to falling sea levels.

Scientific predictions of future sea levels all currently attribute most of the rise to thermal expansion. Oceans cover about 0.7 of the surface of the Earth to an average depth of about 3 km. Heating this mass of water enough to produce measurable changes takes a lot of heat. Melting equivalent volumes of ice takes a lot of heat. Either explanation leads to the conclusion that more heat is coming into the planet than is leaving. This matches careful measurements from space, (which do require considerable training to understand.)

To me it now seems irrefutable that the Earth as a whole is heating up, if not necessarily in the way people imagine.

[never_stop_learning]

Perhaps any measured warming on the Earth has a natural cause? The ice caps on Mars have also been shrinking.....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

The output of our sun has been increasing "by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s".....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s ... 30320.html

Seems to me that the 'business' of Global Warming would collapse if this recent trend was found to be a natural phenomenon.

In matters of possible corruption, 'follow the money' has always been good policy - and there is a great deal of money at stake in the 'Global Warming business'.....

[37fleetwood]

the main push of the thread was first and foremost that some form of truth has been revealed that was meant to stay hidden by Hackers, and I want to applaud this. if dishonest people fear exposure there is at least a chance they will resist the temptation to commit these atrocities.

I would like to pose a question, is it better to cause a global crisis and almost certainly collapse the economies of third world countries and severely damage the economies of larger nations on the possibility global warming may be really happening though it appears now that there is some question, or is it better to ignore the threat of possibly real climate change and maybe reap the whirlwind later?
I tend to think that killing millions of people now by a man made economic crisis is not good policy over something that is not settled, and may very likely turn out to be natural phenomena.

it's been my experience that people are generally shortsighted and politicians and scientists take advantage of this to get their agendas more widely spread. Greenland was green when it was discovered and no one was measuring the oceanic levels back then so we cannot know what it was during a period that we know to have been a natural warming trend which lasted quite a long time. if these scientists were around they might very well have been fighting for attention to become famous for successfully putting their theory forward to acceptance. remember it wasn't that long ago that they told us that we were going to cause an ice-age doing exactly what we are doing now.

[sikpuppy]

...

If you search long and hard enough for a conspiracy in ALL places, as a lot of these "hackers" seem to do, eventually the laws of probability say that you will find one.

Personally I don't see anything in this that reveals much more than any isolated snatch of emails would. The sample size of emails is too small...which makes the conclusions ironic in themselves.

[bugman]

it's been my experience that people are generally shortsighted and politicians and scientists take advantage of this to get their agendas more widely spread.

oh right, i keep forgetting that you think scientists are evil

throw away your computer!