• Profile logout login

#whatweneedmoreofisscience#lab2

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 3:46 PM
Wed Dec 9
47 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:

Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |

Media:
Hamilton Nolan |

Politics:
Alex Pareene |

Investigations:
John Cook |

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |

Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |

Weekends:
Foster Kamer |

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of seyswho seyswho
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    I wish for the views I take I wasn't lumped in with right-wing nutters who think the Earth was created in 6 days 5000 years ago.

    I believe that massive climate change may or may not be occurring. If it indeed is, man may or may not be making a big contribution to it. It may or may not be a normal cyclic change that occurs every so often in the planet's history. I don't take these beliefs for any religious reasons (I am an atheist). The fact is that I don't know these things because scientists themselves do not know them. Scientists in this area are often misquoted and their findings are too often pumped up to a massive degree. The fact of the matter is that the planet's climate is so complex and unpredictable, and the records until recently are so spotty, that it becomes impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy what will happen in the decades to come. With that being said, I am also all for "going green" and taking care of the environment (as well as dependency from oil), because there are many many reasons to do these things other than global warming. But the scare tactics and false urgency about a problem we yet know little about is not the way to do it.
     Reply
    seyswho was starred seyswho was unstarred
    Image of Steverino Begins Steverino Begins
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    Well, one of the things I learned at Thanksgiving was that all this stuff we laugh off on a daily basis is raising the blood pressures of family members, thanks to crazy people like Glenn Beck and the fact that FOX News allows just about zero rebuttal/fact time for all their conspiracy theories.

    Looking for a longer rebuttal article link to send to some fam, if anyone has one.
     Reply
    Steverino Begins was starred Steverino Begins was unstarred
    Image of Paul_Is_Drunk Paul_Is_Drunk
    11/30/09

    @Steverino Begins: I second this.

    I couldn't believe my family was pro-Palin, or any of the other crazy stuff I heard. I haven't bitten my tongue so hard in months.
     Reply
    Steverino Begins promoted this comment Paul_Is_Drunk was starred Paul_Is_Drunk was unstarred
    Image of Steverino Begins Steverino Begins
    11/30/09

    @Paul_Is_Drunk: Yep. I took the middle road to avoid argument: we're all misinformed to a degree, since we all get our news tailored to our POV, few people are really getting the full story anymore, we read it in a bubble, the news system is designed to whip us into a frenzy and make us fight at Thanksgiving, etc. etc. which I do think is true.

    As much as I hate those stupid Crossfire type shows, at least they let us all see what the other side had to say now and then (theoretically at least).
     Reply
    Steverino Begins was starred Steverino Begins was unstarred
    Image of Jes St.Lawrence Jes St.Lawrence
    11/30/09

    @Steverino Begins: better yet, make your own. Start with:

    [www.realclimate.org]

    and the comments starting at the top here:

    [www.reddit.com]
     Reply
    Jes St.Lawrence was starred Jes St.Lawrence was unstarred
    Image of allyzay allyzay
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    Wait, Andrea, honey, your little girl performed this song at a school concert for parents and you found out days later when she was shrieking it out at home? Nice parental involvement! Tsk, tsk!
     Reply
    allyzay was starred allyzay was unstarred
    Image of GW06 GW06
    11/30/09

    @allyzay: Same page!!!! And you know damn well the lyrics were sent home so that Little Peyser could practice.
     Reply
    allyzay promoted this comment GW06 was starred GW06 was unstarred
    Image of MissNormaDesmond MissNormaDesmond
    11/30/09

    @allyzay: Yeah, I noticed that, too. Maybe if you actually spoke to your child more than once a week, Ms. Peyser, you'd have had the chance to stand up to those climate change commies.
     Reply
    Edited by MissNormaDesmond at 11/30/09 2:16 PM MissNormaDesmond was starred MissNormaDesmond was unstarred
    Image of abettertomorrow abettertomorrow
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    "hide the decline," which is a poor way of saying he is attempting to correct for the fact that tree rings don't reflect modern warming trends that are well-documented by actual thermometers.

    Not exactly - you know how people say this is the warmest the planet has been in 1,000 years, or 2,000 years? That's based on tree-ring temperature reconstructions. If tree-rings don't in fact reflect temperature, as more recent data seems to show, then they provide exactly zero evidence that this is a particularly warm period over the last 1,000 years.

    And the small group of people related to these emails has been virtually the only source of tree-ring data used by the IPCC in their reports. So they are highly incented to "hide the decline" as it puts a key meme at risk.

    Certainly global warming, climate change, etc is a much larger issue, but this particular group of scientists sure look like some bad apples.
     Reply
    abettertomorrow was starred abettertomorrow was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: That "hide the decline" statement refers to the fact that latewood tree density ring data has been found to be divergent from thermometer temperature readings post 1960. There's even a name for the phenomenon: the "divergence problem". It's a well discussed issue in global warming literature, not some nasty secret that these scientists are sweeping under the rug.

    Believe it or not, scientists like to address issues like this since it often leads to interesting new questions. No one gets grants for asking questions that have already been answered.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of abettertomorrow abettertomorrow
    11/30/09

    @Cicada: The "hide the decline" email was written in 1999, prior to widespread discussion and awareness of the "divergence problem". Speaks to character and quality of work, not current state of the issue. I should have said "they were highly incented".

    Fact is, if you look at that group's output, their choices as to sample size and statistical methods, and some of the responses in peer-reviewed literature (see D'Arrigo 2008) they just look dodgy. Biffra's walking back the robustness of his findings in "papers" he's just posting to the website...
     Reply
    abettertomorrow was starred abettertomorrow was unstarred
    Image of Trai_Dep Trai_Dep
    11/30/09

    @Cicada: Well said.
    What grates me the most about these guys is their utter, conscious, willful lack of understanding of the Scientific Method, and how peer review (and careers in academia/science) function.
    I can understand them not knowing more than experts in a specialized, dynamic field. What I can't is their willful ignorance of the most basic aspects of how thinking people approach problems.
     Reply
    Trai_Dep was starred Trai_Dep was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: Briffa published a paper on the divergence problem in 1998, prior to the email in 1999.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: Oh, and scientists arguing about each other's findings is pretty much par for the course in any field. It's kind of the point of peer-review, actually. That doesn't mean that you're somehow shady or dodgy.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of Jes St.Lawrence Jes St.Lawrence
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: No, that's only one category of proxy data, not the only kind.
     Reply
    Jes St.Lawrence was starred Jes St.Lawrence was unstarred
    Image of Jes St.Lawrence Jes St.Lawrence
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: No. The abstract for Briffa, Schweingruber, et al. in their 1998 Nature paper discusses the divergence problem.

    'During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated. Moreover, the recent reduction in the response of trees to air-temperature changes would mean that estimates of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based on carbon-cycle models that are uniformly sensitive to high-latitude warming, could be too low.'
     Reply
    Jes St.Lawrence was starred Jes St.Lawrence was unstarred
    Image of abettertomorrow abettertomorrow
    11/30/09

    @Cicada: But the emails are referring to visual displays of the data, which were destined to be re-published, presented, included in materials meant for broad public distribution.

    That's where the "hide the decline" comes in: "look at the data for the last 1,500 years, it's hotter now than it's ever been" - using tree-ring reconstructions. Without hiding the decline, the tree-ring reconstructions look much less compelling, wouldn't you agree?
     Reply
    abettertomorrow was starred abettertomorrow was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: No, the idea of "hiding the decline" simply means that they were trying to present the data without a confounding factor that had already been addressed even in the body of the paper. There was nothing shady about it. It isn't sneaky if you say you did it and cite exactly why.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of Uncle_Billy_Slumming Uncle_Billy_Slumming
    11/30/09

    @Trai_Dep: Eh, peer review is just a big fat chip in the credibility game. Kind of like a ratings agency. Yes, there, I said it... peer reviewed journals are the ratings agencies of the academic world. And since ratings agencies are beyond reproach (just ask them) likewise, you can trust any "research" that has passed muster. Trust authority -- it will not steer you wrong.
     Reply
    Uncle_Billy_Slumming was starred Uncle_Billy_Slumming was unstarred
    Image of abettertomorrow abettertomorrow
    11/30/09

    @Jes St.Lawrence: True, there are other proxies. However, the IPCC report relies almost exclusively on tree-ring data for the last 2,000 years of temperature reconstruction, and for the robust claim that it's hotter today than it's been for 2,000 years. Why do this if there was other supporting data?
     Reply
    abettertomorrow was starred abettertomorrow was unstarred
    Image of abettertomorrow abettertomorrow
    11/30/09

    @Cicada: Here's the WMO report for 1999:
    [www.wmo.ch]

    Take a look at the graph on the first page, purporting to show that recent temperatures are higher than they've been in 2k years. These are solid, single lines running back hundreds of years. This is where they "hid the decline". Where in this report does it explain that this graph is really a mix of sources?

    Look at the very last graph on this page to see what it looks like when you don't "hide the decline":
    [www.uea.ac.uk]

    I just find this behavior by scientists profoundly offensive - it's purposefully misleading.
     Reply
    abettertomorrow was starred abettertomorrow was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @Uncle_Billy_Slumming: Have you ever submitted a paper for peer review? The reviewers are anonymous, and in most cases will do their best to find errors. A really high ranked journal, like Nature, has a multiple tier review process. Your paper is usually being reviewed by other scientists in your field, many of whom have a vested interest in picking apart any little flaws.
    I've never had reviewer comments make me cry, but that's because my hide is as tough as a rhino's and because I've only been a co-author (M.S., not PhD).

    Now I'm not saying that peer-review is infallible, but it certainly isn't a cakewalk. And when crappy papers get through, other scientists aren't exactly reticent about ripping them apart.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: What, exactly, is your point? You seem to have started out arguing that a group of scientists are "bad apples", even though they were pretty clear about why and how they excluded data. Now you seem to be questioning the use of tree-ring data at all, even though it is consistent with other long-range temperature indices like ice core and sea sediment data.
    You seem to be going all over the place in search of something that will validate whatever your viewpoint is, but I'm having a hard time following your logic.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of Jes St.Lawrence Jes St.Lawrence
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: No, they're rejecting an outlier and were very public about it. I've already given you the reference, and this has been a matter of record for over a decade.
     Reply
    Jes St.Lawrence was starred Jes St.Lawrence was unstarred
    Image of Jes St.Lawrence Jes St.Lawrence
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: ... which IPCC report? And there isn't a problem with tree-ring data generally, only from 1960 - '80. I've already cited that.
     Reply
    Jes St.Lawrence was starred Jes St.Lawrence was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: So, following your logic, they should have included data that they knew was flawed in order to not be "misleading". That makes no sense whatsoever.

    You originally (and incorrectly) asserted that no one knew about the divergence problem in 1999. If that was true, I could see your point. It isn't true, however, so I'm unsure why you would cling to that argument.

    Gah, it feels like you just really want a reason to write off this research, regardless of the facts.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of abettertomorrow abettertomorrow
    11/30/09

    @Cicada: Briefly, re "bad apples" - it's clear in that WMO graph that they are intentionally misleading viewers, with no explanation in the text of the report. Do you disagree? Remember, this was a report meant for a broad audience, well beyond the quite small group that might have read the 1998 paper.

    Re the validity of tree-ring data as temperature proxies - they adjusted tree-ring data to match the amplitude and std dev of the temperature records for 1900-1960 or something similar, which is a valid technique. Then, all of a sudden, the data stopped matching after 1960. One explanation is that for 1,000s of years, the width and density of tree-rings reflected the local temperature, and all of a sudden in the last 40 years they "diverged".

    Another explanation is that tree-rings are an entirely unreliable temperature proxy.

    There is no definitive evidence either way - other proxies are not detailed enough in this time scale, or have their own confounding issues, and obviously we don't have temperature records back that far.

    Given all that, yes, I think any thinking person might wonder about the use of tree-ring width to show the temperature 1,200 years ago, when they can't even show the temperature today.
     Reply
    abettertomorrow was starred abettertomorrow was unstarred
    Image of abettertomorrow abettertomorrow
    11/30/09

    @Jes St.Lawrence: AR4 chapter 6. They rely almost exclusively on tree-ring data for the past 2,000 years of reconstruction.

    Not sure what you mean by "there isn't a problem with tree-ring data generally". That's just not true. There's significant literature on this. There's multiple decades of divergence. The hypothesis that tree-ring widths and density reflect ambient temperature is in no way supported by recent data. Just proclaiming tree-rings good temperature proxies, then saying that "wow, we really need to figure out why they're diverging" doesn't actually provide evidence or support for them being good proxies.
     Reply
    abettertomorrow was starred abettertomorrow was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: There are other sources of temperature data that correlate to the tree-ring data, which I mentioned above. The questionable data doesn't negate the entire data set. It raises questions, but it isn't enough to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is even some evidence that the divergence problem may be an artifact of anthropogenic effects, scientists are working to find out the cause.

    Again, it isn't unethical or wrong to not include data that you know is incorrect. It also doesn't make sense to throw out data because of a recent outlier that may have many causes.
     Reply
    Edited by Cicada at 11/30/09 5:00 PM Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of abettertomorrow abettertomorrow
    11/30/09

    @Cicada: You mentioned ice core and sea sediment. Ice core are useful going back 100,000s of years, but don't provide any detail at all within the last 1000 years that I've ever seen in a report. Have you?

    As far as sea sediment, that's really tracking ocean temperatures, and here's an interesting graph showing that the ocean was almost a degree warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today (see page 4):
    [home.badc.rl.ac.uk]

    That sea sediment data looks entirely unrelated to surface temperature reconstructions from tree rings.

    Re tree rings - they were able to match a portion of the curve from tree-ring data to a portion of the curve from temperature data. But nothing before or after matches. It's not "throwing out the entire dataset", it's suggesting that there is no reliable association between the tree-ring dataset and the temperature dataset. There is just no statistically significant association betweet tree-rings and temperature that supports using tree-rings to report on temperatures going back 1,500 years. Have you seen a peer-reviewed paper that suggests otherwise?

    There's a lot of hand-waving, sure - but we're looking for robust, statistically supportable associations.

    D'Arrigo 2008 in Nature I think has a good survey of the current state of the issue.
     Reply
    abettertomorrow was starred abettertomorrow was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @abettertomorrow: Interestingly enough, D'Arrigo lays out an argument if favor of proximal causes for DP, and is fairly ambiguous in regards to whether that means we discount all of the tree-ring data(yes, I've read that paper).

    Here's the thing: we have fairly decent non-tree ring temperature records dating back to around 1900. The DP crops up around 1960. Prior to that, there is evidence that the tree-ring data correlates well with known climate events like droughts/floods/heat waves, etc. Because we've known about the DP since the mid-nineties, people have been looking at ways to evaluate tree-ring data. Lake sediments, wood isotope ratios, lots of other stuff way outside of my experience (I'm a lowly entomologist). So yes, scientists are actively working on these questions. And yes, there are other lines of evidence for climate change.
    Do I think there's something wrong with asking questions about tree-ring data? Absolutely not! Do I assume that the scientists who support the DP hypothesis are duplicitous scam artists intent on deceiving the public? Absolutely not! And that's where I seem to diverge (har har) from you. This sort of disagreement/kerfuffle/ what have you happens all the time in science. There is the DP = all tree-ring data is questionable camp and the DP = a recent phenomenon that doesn't affect older records camp. My belief is that the truth will out, but I'm not in favor of discounting all of the tree-ring data yet.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of Uncle_Billy_Slumming Uncle_Billy_Slumming
    11/30/09

    @Cicada: I have a very narrow view of journal papers, limited to the econ world, to which I should have limited my scorn. I see a couple of problems... people will often tailor their work to what they think the reviewers or journal are looking for. Also, there is plenty to choose from, so the journals can cherry pick what they are looking for.
     Reply
    Uncle_Billy_Slumming was starred Uncle_Billy_Slumming was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @Uncle_Billy_Slumming: True. I'm looking at it from the narrow view of chemical ecology. For whatever reason, this field is both very small and very competitive. I'm sure it affects the review process.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of Jes St.Lawrence Jes St.Lawrence
    12/01/09

    @abettertomorrow: 'Not sure what you mean by "there isn't a problem with tree-ring data generally". That's just not true.'

    I was trying to keep the discussion focussed on the "decline" in question, the hiding of which has been publicly discussed for over a decade.
     Reply
    Jes St.Lawrence was starred Jes St.Lawrence was unstarred
    Image of Mike Jahn Mike Jahn
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    What really amazes me is that the luddite progress deniers we see all over the place these days are so good at using digital techology to get their loony messages out. Why don't they deny the existence of the Internet and go back to sending one another smoke signals.
     Reply
    Mike Jahn was starred Mike Jahn was unstarred
    Image of Lysergic Asset Lysergic Asset
    11/30/09

    @Mike Jahn: Also: if abortion is interfering with God's will, how is in vitro fertilization, surrogacy and/or sperm and egg donors not doing the same thing?
     Reply
    Lysergic Asset was starred Lysergic Asset was unstarred
    Image of ParahSalin ParahSalin
    11/30/09

    @Lysergic Asset: That always makes me laugh when Christians say "we have to give our frozen embryos away to other Christian couples because God wouldn't want us to waste them on stem cell research." Ummmm...God made you infertile for a reason. Why are you defying His will? Conservatives love science and medicine when it benefits them personally.
     Reply
    Lysergic Asset promoted this comment ParahSalin was starred ParahSalin was unstarred
    Image of Lysergic Asset Lysergic Asset
    11/30/09

    @ParahSalin:
     Reply
    Lysergic Asset was starred Lysergic Asset was unstarred
    Image of ParahSalin ParahSalin
    11/30/09

    @Lysergic Asset: NICE! Jesus feels like I do most of the time. By the way, I said last night I was a good Christian woman. I was just kidding. I'm not at all Christian, and I'm rarely good. The woman part was really the only part that was true in that whole sentence.
     Reply
    ParahSalin was starred ParahSalin was unstarred
    Image of Uncle_Billy_Slumming Uncle_Billy_Slumming
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    Put up a couple of bullet lists: 1) Top 10 pieces of evidence that humans contribute in a significant way to global temperature change 2) Top 10 that they don't.
     Reply
    Uncle_Billy_Slumming was starred Uncle_Billy_Slumming was unstarred
    Image of momof3wildkids momof3wildkids
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    Climate change is real and partially man-made. Climate temps rise and fall without our input.

    I still think we should stop polluting the earth; clean up our water; become more fuel efficient; be smarter about pesticides and petrochemical-based fertilizers in our food supply; look at biofuels and renewable sources of energy.

    However, to say that climate change is man-made without acknowledging other factors is foolish.
     Reply
    momof3wildkids was starred momof3wildkids was unstarred
    Image of Inescapable Picnic Inescapable Picnic
    11/30/09

    @momof3wildkids: Who's doing that there strawman, exactly?
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond promoted this comment Inescapable Picnic was starred Inescapable Picnic was unstarred
    Image of Dr. Nick Dr. Nick
    11/30/09

    @momof3wildkids: I don't think anyone is denying that the other factors exist [if you found a scientist who said that, s/he's an idiot]. There are a lot of people trying to deny that our polluting is significantly contributing to global warming.
     Reply
    Falsoman promoted this comment Dr. Nick was starred Dr. Nick was unstarred
    Image of MissNormaDesmond MissNormaDesmond
    11/30/09

    @momof3wildkids: Yes, to say that would be foolish. That's why no one does. Please stop believing what dishonest people tell you.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond was starred MissNormaDesmond was unstarred
    Image of m4ximusprim3 m4ximusprim3
    11/30/09

    @Inescapeable Picnic: Actually, this is one of her least objectionable posts. The evidence seems to point to our influence as a maginfying factor to already pre-existing cycles. We still need to clean up our shit, but it's not like it would always be a balmy 75* if we all drove fairy powered cars.
     Reply
    m4ximusprim3 was starred m4ximusprim3 was unstarred
    Image of Julio Esquivel Julio Esquivel
    11/30/09

    @momof3wildkids: "Other factors" that allow for climate and temperature to fluctuate naturally are overwhelmed by the higher concentration of our efforts, especially after the Industrialization of modern societies.

    Naturally occurring changes in temp and climate happen extremely gradually, whereas, in the past 30 years, alone, it has changed drastically. This isn't because nature decided to increase its rate of production, but rather due to the laissez-faire attitudes of modern industry and the indifference emoted by large-scale populations like ours.

    Naturally occurring changes aren't insignificant, but in comparison, they sure do seem that way.
     Reply
    allyzay promoted this comment Julio Esquivel was starred Julio Esquivel was unstarred
    Image of Falsoman Falsoman
    11/30/09

    @momof3wildkids: Who is that? Since i can remember of the subject i've heard about caw farts having to do with GH gasses.

    I don't remember ANY scientist in favor of global warming / climate change saying it's exclusively man made.
     Reply
    Falsoman was starred Falsoman was unstarred
    Image of Inescapable Picnic Inescapable Picnic
    11/30/09

    @m4ximusprim3: I object to addressing a stance that nobody is taking to make oneself sound reasonable, or unjustly attacked. It was by far my least favorite thing about The Decider.
     Reply
    Inescapable Picnic was starred Inescapable Picnic was unstarred
    Image of momof3wildkids momof3wildkids
    11/30/09

    @Inescapeable Picnic: Pareene is: "Climate change is real and man-made. Period, end of story."
     Reply
    momof3wildkids was starred momof3wildkids was unstarred
    Image of Inescapable Picnic Inescapable Picnic
    11/30/09

    @momof3wildkids: Oh, right. Clearly he must have meant that there are no other factors. It also certainly means that we needn't bother researching any more, because we are done. [conclusive handwipe] What next?
     Reply
    Edited by Inescapable Picnic at 11/30/09 1:56 PM Inescapable Picnic was starred Inescapable Picnic was unstarred
    Image of momof3wildkids momof3wildkids
    11/30/09

    @Dr. Nick: I also believe that our polluting in contributing to the warming of the earth. However, I am objecting to Pareene's "man-made. Period, end of story" assertion. It is NOT the end of the story.

    Momof3wildkids is a green mom. We are installing solar panels on the roof this spring; when I am not carpooling w/the 3 kids, I toodle around in a Prius; I removed nasty oil-based heating system and put in a very high efficiency natural gas one; we put in a well for all of our outdoor water needs; I practice integrated pest management in my organic garden; I buy local food; I hang my laundry out to dry in the summer, etc... I do all those things because they are smart to do for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with global warming, per se. I want a clean food and water supply and I want to be less dependent on fossil fuels that are in short supply.

    Am I helping stem global warming? I haven't the foggiest since I am not sure what the true impact of my carbon footprint is on global warming... not sure anyone really does.

    @m4ximusprim3: Spot on.
     Reply
    momof3wildkids was starred momof3wildkids was unstarred
    Image of the_woog the_woog
    11/30/09

    @Falsoman: but cow farts contributing to global warming IS man made. It's industrial agriculture.
     Reply
    the_woog was starred the_woog was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    If the global warming deniers were scientifically literate, they would understand that removing noise from your data set is a good thing. But no. They have to froth at the mouth and make themselves look even more like ignorant boobs.
    And these are the same folks who have created journals for the sole purpose of bypassing the peer-review process and then they get upset when someone calls them on it? What a bunch of crybabies.

    This stuff wouldn't piss me off so much if these science-illiterate schmendricks had no influence on policy. But they do, and it really is sad.
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of gawkimo gawkimo
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    I've never been able to figure out what the teabagging wackadoodles believe is the motive for this huge conspiracy. Whenever I dare ask all I get back is some convoluted not-completely-thought-out explanation regarding Al Gore making money off green technology and a Commie plot to force an anti-consumerist agenda on hard working 'Mericans so the government can take more of their money to marry the gays and rip fully developed babies out of Christian women to make cosmetics.

    Or something like that.
     Reply
    Edited by gawkimo at 11/30/09 12:54 PM gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @gawkimo: It's all that big money from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Plus, everyone knows academics rake in piles of cash. Heck, if you make tenure after five years or so, you might stand a chance of making $100,000. Woo-hoo! Not bad for a job that requires a minimum of 8 years of schooling and usually entails 10-hour work days (pre-tenure of course). Yup, it's all about the moolah.
     Reply
    Edited by Cicada at 11/30/09 1:10 PM Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of MissNormaDesmond MissNormaDesmond
    11/30/09

    @gawkimo: Basically, they just want to disagree with whatever people they've decided they don't like are telling them, and pretend they have a rational basis for doing so.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond was starred MissNormaDesmond was unstarred
    Image of Barnabus Barnabus
    11/30/09

    @gawkimo: I wasn't sure either, until the deniers came out of the woodwork on io9 last week with the following:

    1) "These people are invested in global warming being true because it could give weight to legislation that will socialize our entire planet and possibly create a new dark ages"

    2) "It has been shown to be a hoax and a fraud perpetrated by science, academia and politicians to take away (y)our liberties and lower (y)our standard of living".

    In other words, the deniers can't even ascribe rational motives like profit or career advancement to this "conspiracy" of global warming advocates. Instead, they have to paint anyone who disagrees with them as essentially moustache-twirling, black-robed disciples of Sauron, opposed to all light, freedom, joy, and prosperity. It tells you the level of the debate they're working on, and it's not a level based on hard evidence and considered response.
     Reply
    allyzay promoted this comment Edited by Lucky at 11/30/09 1:39 PM Lucky approved this comment Barnabus was starred Barnabus was unstarred
    Image of Better to Eat You With Better to Eat You With
    11/30/09

    @gawkimo: They apparently hate the planet their God made.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond promoted this comment Better to Eat You With was starred Better to Eat You With was unstarred
    Image of Cicada Cicada
    11/30/09

    @Barnabus: Jeezalu. At least the evil "Big Pharma" scientists who want to give kids autism have a profit motive. These enviro-loons are just evil.
    /sarcasm
     Reply
    Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred
    Image of MissNormaDesmond MissNormaDesmond
    11/30/09

    @Better to Eat You With: Well, they won't be needing it after the Rapture, anyway.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond was starred MissNormaDesmond was unstarred
    Image of Unsolicited Advice Unsolicited Advice
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    Peyser's rage stems from her belief that global warming is not a sufficiently proven phenomenon. Considering the next song in the playlist was probably about Santa Claus, Silent Nights, and/or menorahs she should probably change her tune.
     Reply
    Unsolicited Advice was starred Unsolicited Advice was unstarred
    Image of blix blix
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    Andrea prefers her daughter's rendition of Tomorrow Belongs To Me.
     Reply
    Edited by blix at 11/30/09 12:53 PM blix was starred blix was unstarred
    Image of MissNormaDesmond MissNormaDesmond
    11/30/09

    @blix: I think I should be able to heart people multiple times.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond was starred MissNormaDesmond was unstarred
    Image of BettyCrocker BettyCrocker
    11/30/09

    In reply to Climate Email Scandal: Scientists Engaged in a Conspiracy of Science
    ZOMG Peyser spawned????

    The mind wobbles.
     Reply
    BettyCrocker was starred BettyCrocker was unstarred
    Image of MissNormaDesmond MissNormaDesmond
    11/30/09

    @BettyCrocker: And the stomach heaves.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond was starred MissNormaDesmond was unstarred
    Image of RizzRustbolt RizzRustbolt
    11/30/09

    @MissNormaDesmond: And the Janitor sighs.
     Reply
    MissNormaDesmond promoted this comment RizzRustbolt was starred RizzRustbolt was unstarred
    Image of Spirit Fingers Spirit Fingers
    11/13/09

    In reply to Water! Moon! There Is Water on the Moon!
    [ redacted because I can never talk about moon travel seriously. ]
     Reply
    Edited by Spirit Fingers at 11/13/09 3:18 PM Spirit Fingers was starred Spirit Fingers was unstarred
    Image of nikralm17 nikralm17
    11/13/09

    In reply to Water! Moon! There Is Water on the Moon!
    Great picture of Jay Leno! #space
     Reply
    Hiroine Protagonist promoted this comment nikralm17 was starred nikralm17 was unstarred
    Image of Hiroine Protagonist Hiroine Protagonist
    11/13/09

    @nikralm17: I heartily enjoy Jay Leno slams in the unlikeliest of places! #space
     Reply
    Hiroine Protagonist was starred Hiroine Protagonist was unstarred
    Image of Mrs. Beeton Mrs. Beeton
    11/13/09

    In reply to Water! Moon! There Is Water on the Moon!
    The moon will slam into the earth in 2012, drowning us all in moonwater. #space
     Reply
    Mrs. Beeton was starred Mrs. Beeton was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.