General > General Technical Chat
the dark side of cobalt
TimFox:
Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
When evaluating the question of global warming, look at macroscopic longer-term effects such as shrinkage of glaciers, not a cold snap in Texas nor its current dangerous heat wave.
vad:
--- Quote from: tom66 on July 14, 2023, 09:17:21 pm ---
--- Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 09:06:12 pm ---I am sorry, but what does IPCC, a lobbyist organization of climate scaremongers, previously caught in falsifying and cherry picking data, have to do with science? They are paid for pushing forward climate change agenda. Any research that does not support their agenda is ignore by IPCC.
--- End quote ---
Please provide your evidence towards the IPCC being corrupt in the manner described. IPCC is independent of governments and summarises existing research.
--- End quote ---
One word: climategate.
Quote: “emails released by a computer hacker that revealed that several leading climate scientists allegedly manipulated climate data and research used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists also appear to have refused outside access to their raw data, obstructed freedom of information requests, and plotted ways to prevent the publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who question global warming alarmism.”
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2009/11/post-27fe9184-802a-23ad-45e5-8feb948b7bb3
TimFox:
Speaking of cherry picking, here is the Wikipedia summary of that controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Other groups looking at the rendering of the hacked e-mails came to conclusions like
'The controversy has focused on a small number of emails with climate change denier websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t". This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability, but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.'
As is common in the current state of discussion
'One of the IPCC's lead authors, Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago, expressed concern at the precedent established by this incident: "[T]his is a criminal act of vandalism and of harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science. It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth... What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?" Another IPCC lead author, David Karoly of the University of Melbourne, reported receiving hate emails in the wake of the incident and said that he believed that there was "an organised campaign to discredit individual climate scientists". Andrew Pitman of the University of New South Wales commented: "The major problem is that scientists have to be able to communicate their science without fear or favour and there seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign designed to intimidate some scientists."'
Apparently, in internal communications, someone wrote "trick" for a method of presenting data, and the hackers assumed that meant like Uri Geller.
vad:
Yeah, I know how this story ended. The same scientists who were accused of wrongdoing took the investigation into their own hands and declared themselves innocent. And then they fact-checked their own claims.
Reminds me of scientists who recently claimed that a pangolin accidentally wandered from Malaysia to a Wuhan wet market, where it was bitten by a bat before being eaten raw by several Wuhan residents. This same group of scientists peer-reviewed their colleague's article and fact-checked it for media outlets, all while receiving overwhelming support from the WHO.
tom66:
--- Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 10:13:47 pm ---Yeah, I know how this story ended. The same scientists who were accused of wrongdoing took the investigation into their own hands and declared themselves innocent. And then they fact-checked their own claims.
--- End quote ---
Er, no... it was quite the scandal at the time it came out, but there were numerous enquiries (including at least one led by a prominent right-winger, known to be climate change skeptical - Jim Inhofe) that all concluded there was nothing much there worth investigating. You have some informal language like "applying a trick" that is misrepresented so many times by media but means very little other than applying a data processing technique. I bet in 100,000 emails you could find something to make a conspiracy about everything, the fact that in those 100,000 emails they found at best four interesting things to support claims of a grand conspiracy is pretty telling IMO.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version