GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
this.
Scientific journal "Nature" finds nothing noteworthy in CRU leak
- Thread starter randomname
- Start date
this.
BenIsForRon
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,404
It's funny how you guys accuse me of "attacking the messenger" when you do the same thing with these nature articles. They lay out a rather sound argument for these emails NOT being part of a conspiracy. Lazy, irresponsible... yes. But not part of a conspiracy.
That's just my take on the subject, but if the CRU does get multiple FOIA requests every week, as much as 50, how the hell are they supposed to respond to all of those?
Really, the FOIA parts of the emails are the only parts I really have a problem with. These guys should be working with the other side to facilitate the exchange of information, not slow it down.
EDIT: Let me clarify that last part, my problem is that they favored secrecy in the emails, seen in the way they talked about FOIA requests. It's ok to be mad at the people filing ten of them every week, but to actively try to avoid the acts is a huge problem. In the realm of science and information, data should never be hidden.
That's just my take on the subject, but if the CRU does get multiple FOIA requests every week, as much as 50, how the hell are they supposed to respond to all of those?
Really, the FOIA parts of the emails are the only parts I really have a problem with. These guys should be working with the other side to facilitate the exchange of information, not slow it down.
EDIT: Let me clarify that last part, my problem is that they favored secrecy in the emails, seen in the way they talked about FOIA requests. It's ok to be mad at the people filing ten of them every week, but to actively try to avoid the acts is a huge problem. In the realm of science and information, data should never be hidden.
Last edited:
They have a dedicated information officer on staff, who they consulted with, and apparently convinced that FoI requests were to be ignored. That was in the emails. Someone whos job is to handle FoI requests should be able to do 50 a week. Or hire another couple people considering the huge amount of (your) money the CRU was "granted" by multiple large governments and the UN. It's a cop out to say "Oh we couldn't handle all that responsibility! We're too busy saving the world." Makes no sense.
Brooklyn Red Leg
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 2,091
You're gonna look awful fucking funny when you have shovel snow off your front lawn every day of the summer 20 years from now. The trending is going downwards and we may be headed into a Maunder-type Minima, if not something worse such as Glaciation.
I wonder if increased CO2 triggers ice ages instead of warming periods. Im not addressing whether manmade or otherwise since CO2 levels have been significantly higher through natural means historically. But Im starting to think that cooling and an ice age is the planet's response. Nature is all about balance. If the balance is out of whack then the planet naturally cures the imbalance. What better way than to cool everything down and trap CO2 into the ice and frozen grounds? The warming advocates say that CO2 makes the planet hotter. But how would the planet compensate to rebalance? Hotter temps means less ice and more water. Water can't trap CO2 and eventually fix the imbalance. This is assuming that high CO2 is even a problem in the first place btw.
This is what irks me about this whole "debate". The planet has survived, adapted, changed, etc for billions of years. From planetary ice ages to extreme drought and even continental drift where continents were in completely different parts of the world than they are today. Do people forget about Pangea? This planet has been changing constantly! I find it so arrogant (and even ignorant) to think that some cars and cows can destroy a planet when volcanoes and meteors never could. /rant
Last edited:
BenIsForRon
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,404
What I'm worried about is mass extinction. We're in the 6th great extinction in the history of the earth (past ones caused by asteroids, volcanoes and so on). Most of it is due to pollution independent of global warming, but scientists do say that temperature changes are starting to put stress on animal populations in certain parts of the globe.
So the thing is, if you warm the globe faster than it has ever been warmed before, what are you going to end up killing. Will you end up killing anything important to human survival?
And this is what I find ironic. The GW people are running around talking about how we're destroying the planet and whatnot, but the reality is that we'd only be destroying ourselves. Seems to me that those people are putting HUMANITY higher than the PLANET, even though they are trying to make it look the other way around. If they cared so much for the planet then let the planet get rid of the polluters like you, me, and them so the almighty planet can start over. But no...that makes too much sense and those that claim to love the planet so much really only love themselves.
YouTube - George Carlin on Global Warming
You guys really can't argue with or criticize the journal Nature on scientific grounds. As has been posted before on this thread, that's the most respected scientific journal in the world. They obviously know more than any of us do about the science of global warming.
dannno
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 65,717
BenIsForRon
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,404
There is nothing wrong with trying to preserve a place on earth for humanity. Yes, we all care about the trees and the whales, but we want to be here to experience those things as well.
Carole
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 5,035
Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails
18:36 04 December 2009 by Michael Le Page
MICHAEL F. LEPAGE. EDUCATION. Master of Science,
Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University, 1981. Bachelor of Science, Mathematics, McGill University, ...
18:36 04 December 2009 by Michael Le Page
MICHAEL F. LEPAGE. EDUCATION. Master of Science,
Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University, 1981. Bachelor of Science, Mathematics, McGill University, ...
Last edited:
You in particular should watch the Carlin video in my quoted post above. He explains exactly what you said.
"They don't care about the planet. They only care about a nice habitat for themselves."
That usually also means they know how to bullshit their way through most anything and not worry about being called out on it. If you can't beat them with facts, then baffle them with bullshit. Judging by the mess these emails and datasets have caused I think it's safe to say that not many people, Nature Magazine included, knows much about the "science of global warming" (used loosely).
I just went to Nature's website and was kinda surprised to see that just to read an article there you have to pay $32. Follow the money, my friends.
BenIsForRon
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,404
Everybody has already posted that video a thousand times. It has nothing to do with me.
Actually, you don't even know what he's talking about. He's talking about people that say "We've gotta save the planet!" That's not what I'm saying at all.
The planet will exist for billions of years after we pass on, what I want is for humans to find a way to stay on the planet for at least a few more millenia.
So at least I'm being honest. I'm a people firster. Sorry, I guess that sounds greedy, but I wish to maintain a beautiful and inhabitable planet for generations not yet born.
Not taxing them into poverty and hunger would be a good place to start, don't you agree?
Right, and the Federal Reserve knows more about economics than we do, too
The Fed has a political reason to lie to us and deceive us. Just in terms of their naked self interest, they have a lot to gain by setting interest rates, lending to certain institutions and not others, etc. The Fed is a part of the corrupt power structure of Washington.
The journal Nature does not seem to have anything to gain, one way or the other, by hiding facts or deceiving people. In fact, it seems like they would have everything to lose if they did that and were caught. And let me say it again: Nature is the most respected scientific journal in the world. That means nothing to you? Lots of very smart and principled people, both liberal and conservative, look up to Nature as a paragon.
Nature is not a political organization, not even in the slightest. They do not meddle in politics. Someone said Nature was liberal, or had a liberal bias, and I want to ask: Have you ever read or even looked at the journal? Can you glean the depths to which you have no clue about what you're talking about?
The Fed is evil. The Fed is a part of the conspiracy of global banksters. Many, many organizations are a part of this political/economic conspiracy. Nature is not one of these organizations. Not every organization on the planet is a part of a conspiracy. Why is it so hard to believe that Nature is politically unbiased and focused almost solely on science, and nothing else? What would they have to gain by being anything but that? What makes you think they are anything but that?
Similar threads
