[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

[mmillard1 at comcast.net]

I fear Jeff you are missing an important detail.  There is an enormous incentive for "scientist" to produce results that support Man Made Global Warming. Have you seen how many grants, documentaries and books they are producing? There are billions being moved around and I assure you there are politicians and companies making a ton of money because of changes to policies based on Climate change. 



The AGW crowd say their models are perfect. I have to wonder how they can be perfect since we do not currently truly understand weather patterns, air or water currents. How can you create a reliable model with so much of what we don't know not factored in?  Why is it if they are correct that the AGW forces share so little of the complete unmodified data they use? The Scientific method requires the scientific process to be verifiable and repeatable. 



I also should remind you of the many scientific frauds of the past. 



I don't think anyone will argue that a great deal of this movement is a grass roots effort by activists and school teachers who treat the idea as fact.  If it is fact why is this a discussion? It's a discussion because like Whales and trees it is an emotional issue.  We have a long history of EcoExtremism and it is my opinion AGW is in the same ilk.  Would people lie and make up facts? There are people who will sink ships with the crew on board to save a whale so yes I am sure there are.  



A nyway I am trying to stay on topic. To suggest there is nothing to be gained by supporting AGW and tons to be gained by fighting it is a massively flawed thought process.  The scientists supporting AGW are getting fame, wealth and influence for supporting it.  Al Gore turned into a world Icon by supporting it. Inventing the Internet wasn't enough for him.  It's the scientists saying there is no data to support AGW who are loosing out.  They are being blocked from publications and harrassed openly by "scientists" who claim their work stands on it's own.  Provided you use the partial data and confusing excuses they give you for why they haven't been able to accurately predict anything at all. 



What do we know absolutely? 



We know the world has cooled a great deal in the recorded past. We know it happened quickly and reverted to warming temps quickly. 



We know that in the earths past the Poles were not where they are now. In fact they have changed many times. 



We know that contrary to many specials and documentaries by AGW supporters the Arctic and Far North are not melting for the first time in history. 

We know that it is impossible to explain the planetary shifts with a few years of wondering around Alaska making personal observations. 


We know there has never been a successfull prediction made by AGW supporters. They say they lack proper tools.  How hard is it to measure temperature? If it's supposed to be 3 degrees warmer and it isn't then the formula predicting 3 or more degrees warmer is flawed. It is just that simple. 



If someone will not let you see their data then there is a reason. 



We know some parts of the planet are actually colder. 


We know the charts and graphs produced by AGW supporters do not match the actual results we are measuring using our pathetic technology that can only measure temperature to thousands of a degree. 



We know the simple solutions are usually the most accurate. 



Is the earth the only planet in our solar system getting warmer? No it isn't. Mars and Juniper appear to be heating up. There are indications several moons in the solar system are warming. 



Is human activity capable of accounting for the other changes in the Solar system? No it isn't. Unless you believe the there are secret military bases on other planets.  It could happen. 



Are there Sunspot charts that map accurately with planetary temperature changes? yes there are. 



Do the authors of the sunspot charts provide access to their complete data sets? Yes they do. 



Is it real science if the supporting data is manipulated and secretive? No, it's not. 



If you have a theory which is not supported by real world data can you call it a fact? Sure you can but your going to be telling a lie. Facts are quantifiable and reproducable.  Until AGW supporters can actually predict the weather for a day or two in a row withing a half degree can we really spend the trillions they are asking for?  



As to the original point, I am sure Trillions of dollars are being discussed as numbers global warming supports are tossing around as the cost to fix the problem they have to massage numbers to even remotely support.  That is a huge reason to bend facts and out right manipulate data.  And that doesn't touch on the fact that surely there are people who believe the hype with or without facts. It is a religion in the same way Green Peace and Save the Whales were in the day to the radicals who found it as a cause.  You can be sure I'd do anything to get things done if I thought the world depended on it. 



We should not trash our planet because it's just a silly thing to do.     




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Lightner" <jlightner at water.com> 
To: "Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!" <ale at ale.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2009 3:32:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack 

Ad hominem attacks are bad when one is simply changing the subject but 
when one is talking about "scientific opinions" I'd say a person's other 
"scientific opinions" may be relevant if they too fly in the face of 
what reasonable people believe.   The argument that one can't directly 
show cause and effect is specious - the argument is about correlation of 
data.   If a "scientist" ignores such correlation in one argument then 
it seems reasonable to suppose he is doing the same in another.   

There is a huge economic incentive to say global warming does not exist 
and not much of one to say it does exist so my skepticism will always 
fall against those who have gained or stand to gain from denying its 
existence.  Where I earlier lauded W for his stance for the need to have 
global standards I now mention that it was by and large his pro-business 
at any cost administration that mainly challenged global warming as a 
problem.   It is telling that at the very end of his Presidency he 
changed positions on this and admitted it is something that needs to be 
addressed.   

-----Original Message----- 
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of 
david w. millians 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:38 PM 
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux! 
Subject: Re: [ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack 

Doug McNash wrote: 
> Similarly you argue: 
> Professor Lindzen does not believe in AGW. Lindzen does not believe 
> smoking causes cancer.  Therefore, AGW must be true because Lindzen 
> is obviously a kook since everybody know smoking causes cancer 
> (another "consensus").  By the same logic it could be argued that the 
> sun rises in the west because everything Lindzen asserts is false. 
> 
> This is the Ad Hominem argument, attacking the person instead of 
> attacking his argument. 

To clarify: 
You're right. I am using a bit of ad hominem. But, I feel it is 
warranted. 

It is not a "consensus." It is a consensus. Indeed, it is a fact that if 

you smoke, you vastly increase negative effects on your body, and you 
dramatically increase your odds of cancer. 

Now, me saying this does not mean that he is not wholly correct about 
climate change. He might be. However, if you have a person who is 
willing to pick nits to an infinite degree to be able to try to get 
around the central concept that smoking is bad, and to assuage the fact 
that he started a stupid behavior and is too addicted to quit, I find it 

wholly reasonable to use that lens to filter his other comments through. 

If he held similar views on "evolution" (quotes added for comparison) he 

would be under scrutiny just the same way. I find this a valid method of 

the process of evaluating a person's trustworthiness. 

I find this quite similar, actually, to the reports that come out from 
orgs (paid by Microsoft) about the money that Windows saves vs. Linux 
and about how all is rainbows and unicorns. 
_______________________________________________ 
Ale mailing list 
Ale at ale.org 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale 
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo 
  
Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure. 
  
Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments. 
---------------------------------- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. 
---------------------------------- 

_______________________________________________ 
Ale mailing list 
Ale at ale.org 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale 
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at 
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20091202/5ee51b91/attachment.html