DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Data File Lost....Is This a DQ?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 74, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/29/2009 08:56:47 PM · #1
All right I'm not talking about a challenge. This is much more serious. With Copenhagen around the corner, and world leaders planning on taking a lot of our wealth away, the now discredited Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia now say that they have thrown out the raw data that leads them to believe that global warming exists. If you have been following climategate, you know that the CRU has been witholding the data and threatening to delete it, but they had never before made the claim that the data was lost. The CRU's work is what just about everyone has used to support the claim of global warming. I don't believe the original data is lost, I think it is being hidden because if any objective scientist interpreted it, they would see that the earth is not warming. Here are two links, the first states that the data is lost, the second describes the importance of the original data. If we can be DQ'd at DPC for losing our original data, what should happen to these scoundrels?

//www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

//www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
11/29/2009 09:04:42 PM · #2
I guess if these articles make you feel better ignoring all the anecdotal evidence of human induced climate change, then go for it. But your DPC analogy is pretty weak at best.
11/29/2009 09:31:45 PM · #3
The earth isn't warming, its getting cold- very very very cold. Colder than it ever has before. The data has been modified to prevent citizens from freaking out and moving in mass to the equator. Soon massive ice sheets will cover both poles and reach well past the tropics. You happy now?

Moving to Rant in 10....9....8....7.....
11/29/2009 09:38:34 PM · #4
Originally posted by cloudsme:

The CRU's work is what just about everyone has used to support the claim of global warming.

This is tinfoil hat material. Global warming was already well established and accepted by climatologists decades before the CRU was founded.
11/29/2009 09:47:29 PM · #5
Originally posted by cloudsme:

//www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html


The author of this bs also believes that second hand smoke doesnt cause cancer:
//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1556118/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html
That mad cow disease doesnt cause problems in humans:
//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387271/Christopher-Bookers-Notebook.html
That intelligent design is science:
//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1495664/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html

Hardly the type that anyone should be following.
11/29/2009 10:13:15 PM · #6
*donning tinfoil hat, sticking fingers in ears and singing 'Lalalalalaaaa' very loud*
11/29/2009 10:13:37 PM · #7
Originally posted by scalvert:

This is tinfoil hat material...


Couldn't have said it better.
11/29/2009 10:26:02 PM · #8
I always love how some believe only what they want to believe and ignore all other data.
11/29/2009 11:03:05 PM · #9
Originally posted by jbsmithana:

I always love how some believe only what they want to believe and ignore all other data.


I guess that is the point. There is no data. Just a conspiracy of manipulation, fear mongoring, and arrogance. The so called scientists who have made the best case for global warming have no data to back it up.
11/29/2009 11:04:14 PM · #10
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

The CRU's work is what just about everyone has used to support the claim of global warming.

This is tinfoil hat material. Global warming was already well established and accepted by climatologists decades before the CRU was founded.


Decades ago scientist were talking about another ice age.
11/29/2009 11:14:10 PM · #11
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

The CRU's work is what just about everyone has used to support the claim of global warming.

This is tinfoil hat material. Global warming was already well established and accepted by climatologists decades before the CRU was founded.


Decades ago scientist were talking about another ice age.


I brought that up in an earlier thread, I was told I did not know what I was talking about and changes made at that time saved the world...
11/29/2009 11:24:54 PM · #12
My tinfoil hat automatically filters out everything but what I already believe.
11/29/2009 11:32:32 PM · #13
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

The CRU's work is what just about everyone has used to support the claim of global warming.

This is tinfoil hat material. Global warming was already well established and accepted by climatologists decades before the CRU was founded.


Decades ago scientist were talking about another ice age.


It's also a fact that for the past 6 years, the global average temperature has been dropping, due directly to reduced solar irradiance, correlated with (related to?) onset of a very deep solar minimum. This has nothing whatever to do with the impact of greenhouse gasses, the effect of which is without a doubt being felt.
11/29/2009 11:48:21 PM · #14
Here's an interesting read.

//www.nhteapartycoalition.org/pdf/LeonAshby.pdf

Message edited by author 2009-11-29 23:48:36.
11/30/2009 12:00:45 AM · #15
Originally posted by cloudsme:

The so called scientists who have made the best case for global warming have no data to back it up.

You clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. The CRU does not equal all scientists, and if it completely disappeared overnight there would still be an overwhelming mountain of data to support the inescapable reality of AGW.
11/30/2009 07:05:34 AM · #16
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

The so called scientists who have made the best case for global warming have no data to back it up.

You clearly have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. The CRU does not equal all scientists, and if it completely disappeared overnight there would still be an overwhelming mountain of data to support the inescapable reality of AGW.


Mann (one of the corrupt scientist) is heavily represented in the Paleo Reconstructions you have given here. I can't tell you what relations the other scientist in your data list have to Mann or Jones, but they are all a close community. Climate theory of global warming relies heavily on these paleo reconstructions. Without them, the whole thing falls apart.
11/30/2009 08:00:52 AM · #17
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Mann (one of the corrupt scientist) is heavily represented in the Paleo Reconstructions you have given here.

In what way is Mann corrupt? Be specific.

Originally posted by cloudsme:

I can't tell you what relations the other scientist in your data list have to Mann or Jones, but they are all a close community. Climate theory of global warming relies heavily on these paleo reconstructions.

More tinfoil hat material. Cue the cuckoo birds. Again, global warming was well established before Mann was even born and does not depend upon any single data source or reconstruction.

Message edited by author 2009-11-30 08:01:37.
11/30/2009 08:54:03 AM · #18
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Mann (one of the corrupt scientist) is heavily represented in the Paleo Reconstructions you have given here.

In what way is Mann corrupt? Be specific.

Originally posted by cloudsme:

I can't tell you what relations the other scientist in your data list have to Mann or Jones, but they are all a close community. Climate theory of global warming relies heavily on these paleo reconstructions.

More tinfoil hat material. Cue the cuckoo birds. Again, global warming was well established before Mann was even born and does not depend upon any single data source or reconstruction.


Michael Mann was born in 1965. There was not a significant global warming theory before the 1980's. If you can't document that the current climate is different from historic climates, how can you say the climate has changed? Paleo studies are supposed to have documented this change. Michael Mann was previously discredited with his "hockey stick" graph. I ask you to read his e-mails and tell me if you think he is reputable. They are in many stories out there. Have to go to work, but I will link later if you can't find them.

Without reliable paleo data, the global change, warming theory falls apart like a house of cards. Take off your tinfoil hat and answer a question for me. Why would scientists hide their original data if it clearly shows what it is supposed to represent?

11/30/2009 09:23:34 AM · #19
Global Warming was first predicted in 1896, and well established by WWII. Historical data is not necessary to predict what happens when a whole lot of CO2 is introduced to the atmosphere given its known properties. The "hockey stick" issue has never been discredited, nor is it based entirely on Mann's work.

Originally posted by cloudsme:

Why would scientists hide their original data if it clearly shows what it is supposed to represent?

That particular data was excluded because it's not considered reliable information (even by the original authors). "This decline was written up in Nature in 1998 where the authors suggested not using the post 1960 data. Their actual programs (in IDL script), unsurprisingly warn against using post 1960 data. Note that the ‘hide the decline’ comment was made in 1999 – 10 years ago, and has no connection whatsoever to more recent instrumental records."

Message edited by author 2009-11-30 10:38:52.
12/01/2009 06:51:32 PM · #20


Jones has been DQ'd from CRU.

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102737_pf.html

The SC is investigating Mann at Penn State (soon to be DQ'd)

//www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html

DPC reflects real life. You lose the original file, your work is meaningless.
12/01/2009 07:32:42 PM · #21
Originally posted by cloudsme:

DPC reflects real life. You lose the original file, your work is meaningless.

This is the "submitted for validation" step, not a DQ. The people in question were not fired, and their work has not been invalidated. They invited an independent review and are staying out of the way during that process. "A panel will read every E-mail leaked and determine if climate change critics have any ground for their accusations..." Requesting independent review is not only commonplace in science, it's also a pretty good indicator that you have nothing to hide.
12/01/2009 08:21:07 PM · #22
All I've got to say is....

Its snowing in Lubbock, Texas right now.
12/01/2009 08:22:26 PM · #23
Originally posted by irish_princess87:

All I've got to say is....

Its snowing in Lubbock, Texas right now.


And in Toronto, Canada, we havent had any snow in November this year, the first time that has happened since we have been keeping weather records (170+ years)

Message edited by author 2009-12-01 20:23:02.
12/01/2009 08:46:58 PM · #24
We had an amazing

0.83 inches

of rain this summer in Tucson, the 3rd driest in all of time.

Since summer ended, we have had 0.09 of rain. IT is December 1st and the leaves are just starting to turn like Fall (Autumn)

12/01/2009 09:31:41 PM · #25
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cloudsme:

DPC reflects real life. You lose the original file, your work is meaningless.

This is the "submitted for validation" step, not a DQ. The people in question were not fired, and their work has not been invalidated. They invited an independent review and are staying out of the way during that process. "A panel will read every E-mail leaked and determine if climate change critics have any ground for their accusations..." Requesting independent review is not only commonplace in science, it's also a pretty good indicator that you have nothing to hide.


Jones was actually a self DQ. You are right about Mann, he is in the validation step, after someone clicked "suspect rules violation." Independent review and peer review are good things unless the review process is corrupt. That is part of the problem with global climate research. I don't see how Mann can be validated, if the review process is genuine, when he can't produce his original data. You know what the result would be at DPC where little is at stake. How can you justify less from this process.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/15/2021 05:02:58 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/15/2021 05:02:58 PM EST.