Hackers Break Into Climate Change Research Center, Leak Email

kirbyrj said:
I'm not against science. Once again, post-modernism is in play here. You can NEVER get beyond your own existence to view yourself, your surroundings, your biases, etc. to view any set of data without first interpreting it.

The scientific method is great. I have no problems with it. I am not afraid of it. The problem is that scientists (in general) think that they can overcome this bias and observe, record, and interpret data without bias. This is not true.

In terms of evolution, I see a fossil record with nowhere near enough transitional forms to encompass Darwinism. You see enough. We are both looking at the same (or similar) data, but our presuppositions and biases are causing us to look differently at the same information. I see mathmatical probability being extremely unlikely/impossible that a single cell entity would develop into the billions of species on the earth today. You see the same data and come to a different conclusion.
Click to expand...

See, I highly doubt that we've looked at the same information. I don't mean to sound pedantic and egotistical, but I have poured over thousands fossils and read thousands of pages of literature. If A. multiloculata didn't evolve from Th. greenhonensis, then why do they look so much alike when A. multiloculata first diverged? Nothing I do would make any sense without evolution in play. Ultimately, though, all of the answers are all out there, and we will find them. I guess the problem I have is that at some point you have to accept some things that the evidence overwhelmingly supports as true in order to build a framework that allows you to create more knowledge. If we were to "tear down" evolution, and just say that plants and animals mysteriously appear in a logical order in the fossil record from least complex to most complex, it would create more questions than it would answer. The beauty of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that it explains several different biological phenomena at once.

At the end of the day, what you proclaim to be FACT, is only the biased observations and interpretations of data. At some point, you believe, that your interpretation of the data is closer to the truth than mine is, and I believe that mine is. No worries. I think we can all still be friends even if we disagree :D.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

All interpretations are not equal though. Those interpretations most supported by the evidence, regardless of bias, are more correct. They may not be totally correct, but they have more validity if their reasoning is better. Hence, if you say "evolution isn't true" you HAVE to come up with a way to explain, in detail, why.

Climber said:
We're getting off topic here but I feel that this thread has gone far beyond that now. My whole point was that yes scientists and others in academia have preconceived biases when it comes to their studies or things they have been taught. What issues I may have with it have no bearing on the initial argument. If you must know I'll just point out that one example is the incomplete fossil record. Regardless of the marine layers of fossil records many of which I'm familiar with is the convenient lack of fossil records for many of the modern species today, humans included. I'm not trying to soft argue for ID or anything. I'm just looking at things from my pov and I see holes. Now whether those holes are due to my own ignorance on the subject, which it may very well be seeing as I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a scientist, or because they really are there and I'm far enough removed to see them without bias who is to say. The only thing we can do is look at those areas and see if they can be adequately explained with evidence and facts or if it is one of those areas where the evidence isn't fully developed and that is all we can say on that matter. But I'm sure that this thread is derailed enough without me postulating a plethora of other questions that don't belong on a hardware enthusiasts forum. .


You're right populations do change within species; however, looking at the LTEE experiment the molecular evolution theory at first believed isn't being witnessed in the changes of the E Coli strains. Now what this means in the long term remains to be seen, but the point being is that thee are still holes in the evolutionary argument and records that have yet to be answered completely. This may change as molecular evolution changes as more evidence emerges and gives us a pattern we can see and replicate. But at this current juncture I still see questions that need answering. I'm long removed from years as a Geology and Marine Biology major. My mom is the retired director of public health for a major California county so science has always been somewhat of a conversational topic around the table; however, I'm loathe to admit that i don't follow or keep up with it as much as I used to due to my career change and other volunteer work.


I'm more familiar with the Burgess Shale deposits as that is where I spent a summer field study which I believe is the foremost deposit of marine soft shell fossils from the either the Cretaceous or the Cambrian periods. One of the things I do remember studying was the cyclical nature of the fossil records and the lack of understanding as to what caused these. One of the reasons was climate change of course but I don't believe anything was ever determined. I should start looking this up before I start getting things wrong or spouting old information, but maybe you're more familiar with this as I am.

As far as the general population being excited over species transitions in trilobites or marrella no one really cares outside of scientists. It would be like trying to explain the finding of Zama to someone outside my field. No one would really care. However, if abundant evidence of humans ancestors were found I think more people would be like really whoa that is cool since it directly relates to them. But no one really cares about a woolly mammoth found in Siberia unfortunately...
Click to expand...

I generally agree. However, just because you think there are holes in evolutionary theory doesn't mean it's not true. If you haven't been keeping up with some of the latest developments in paleontology, there are several books out there that have been published recently. I recommend For the Rock Record and The Making of the Fittest. Just the past 15 years have lead to incredible discoveries. Oh, and the Burgess Shale is Cambrian. ;) I haven't had the pleasure of ever seeing it, though it's on my list.
 
ianken said:
Here's a good post from the Angry Astronomer on why this is much ado about nothing. Unless you fail at science.

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2009/11/sesame-street-logic.html
Click to expand...
This seems like more of the same tactic. They address one of the more minor issues and then declare the whole thing to be overblown. Thus giving the impression that with that issue settled, there's nothing more to see.

Except. There is.

As WSJ (conservative) columnist James Taranto puts it:
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.​
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"​
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. . . .​
Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said.
​
This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate--to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?​
And Taranto doesn't even address the instances where scientists collude to destroy records and emails in order to avoid a FOI request. Nor the attempts at getting unsympathetic editors of journals fired. It's actually worse than he describes it.

But again, nobody is saying that these scientists are intentionally lying. But we are saying that they stopped behaving like scientists and that it looks like it is very possible that their research is substantially tainted by politics and ideology.

The fact that this is all about computer modeling is perhaps the most unnerving thing. They are building computer models based on how they understand the climate to work based on their pre-existing belief that man should influence the climate. If you build computer models to simulate man's effect on the climate, why would you be surprised when your model shows that man will affect the climate? It seems a bit naive to think that these folks are building an accurate model of how the planet's climate actually works without any bias towards demonstrating that we're all doomed if we don't act now. And these emails now make people who feel that way about these "models" and the folks who created them somewhat vindicated in remaining skeptical. It's a classic "garbage in, garbage out" situation. Yet we're ready to turn the world's economies upside down based on these models.

Case in point: Everyone now agrees that the warming has stalled (the leaked emails even address this, and they seem pretty pissed off about it). None of the models predicted this. And none of the models can explain it. Yet we're still told that the science is settled. Because the scientists who created those models have told us so. . . even though they (now demonstrably) suppressed anyone among their peers who would disagree while withholding as much information from them as possible.

That's not science. That's politics. These people have an agenda and they are clearly not willing to "go wherever the data leads them" even when that data is the last decade of stabilized and even declining temperatures that have seriously undermined confidence in their models (even among themselves as one particular email demonstrates -- privately). They're certainly not willing to allow others to see if their science leads them to the same conclusions (unless of course, you're judged to be appropriately sympathetic to the "cause.")
 
I should have been more clear that the Taranto quote above begins with Taranto quoting the Washington Post (hence the double indent).

I wonder if we'll ever get post editing turned on in the Headlines forum? =)
 
ordovician said:
*scratched head* What!!??? Who is to say I don't!? You are mixing paradigms here. Faith in a superior being has nothing to do with science. They are separate entities, and both can be simultaneously entertained within you, but each must be separate and mutually complimentary. Science cannot, by definition, accept anything on faith. People can. Learn the difference.
Click to expand...

This smacks of Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA) crap, but you are redeemed with "mutually complimentary." :) If science suggests the universe is billions of years old and that the Earth coalesced from a ball of gas but faith decrees that the world was created in six days, then sorry, faith had better put up some scientific hypotheses. If a story posits that a rotting corpse came back to life at a man's touch while all of the evidence suggests that just don't happen, there's a conflict that cannot be separated.

Honestly, all of kirbyrj's issues are asked and answered in Dawkins' "The God Delusion." You don't have to like his tone, but you can't refute that God is the ultimate impossible thing to explain (and doesn't even fill in the gaps properly). And evolution is anything but "just a theory" and at all random.

Science is not about proving absolutes. That was the fallacy of the "Laws" of the Newton era. Those things failed to hold up to scientific scrutiny so we shy away from the term now. "Theory" is as solid as you'll get in biology, my friends. We will never have, nor do we need, a complete fossil record. Essentially, kirbyrj is asking for a fossil of every living being that ever lived, because, after all, every transitional fossil we find creates two new gaps that science has to fill! Sorry, most of our ancestors are oil or methane or CO2.

Stop looking for proof. Propose an alternative theory that is falsifiable. I.E. What would prove this theory wrong? As J S Haldane famously said when asked what would disprove evolution for him: "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." Creationism has never been able to do the same, no matter how many times its name changes.

Back on topic, valid research contrary to accepted dogma is good... VALID research, after much scrutiny, helps refine (rarely overthrow) models accepted as standard. Global climate models are better this year than they were last year than they were five years ago.

I am not convinced that what the East Anglia researchers were doing was anything other than garbage filtering. There have been some points made in conflict with that hypothesis here that I will be researching further. With a skeptical eye.
 
srangara said:
I am not convinced that what the East Anglia researchers were doing was anything other than garbage filtering.
Click to expand...
Last I checked, it wasn't accepted scientific practice that you should be able to pick and choose those who will be allowed to review/criticize your methodology and findings. Repeatedly, those emails demonstrate that this is exactly what these folks were attempting to accomplish. I can understand not cooperating or freezing out utter cranks and uqualified laymen (I assume that's what you mean by "garbage filtering"). But time and again they not only freeze out legitimate peers, but actually attempt to personally and/or professionally ruin some of them for not adhering to the official Anthropogenic Climate Change line.

I honestly don't see how anyone who takes science seriously (ie, scientists) can read those emails without being seriously disturbed. "Lack of context" can only conveniently explain away so much. Some of it is inexcusable under any context. I suspect that some careers may be adversely affected by these revelations (as they should be) and we may in fact see criminal charges in the case of FOIA-dodging.

Anyways, hitting the road so won't be able to post further. Take care all and I hope everyone celebrating (US) Thanksgiving this weekend has a happy holiday!
 
Correlation =/= causation.

No proof whatsoever that humans are causing the latest temp increase.
 
I can only laugh out loud at those that so desperately cling to .."Its impossible for man to have played a part" etc..

of course there is agenda on both sides of the issue.

but one simple, common sense argument that seems generaly overlooked;

The earth is a closed system. if you poop in a closed system, eventually you overcome natural Resiliency to accomodate the poop. Its that freakin simple people.

Again, there is agenda on both sides, but isn't there a basic enlightened self interest to not to continue to shit where we eat?

Sooo many are so rabidly politicized on both sides, as to be willing to lick the boots of those at the top of the politicxiaztion effort, as to mind blowingly be willing to assure their own destruction.

for the right; does listening to enough beck /limbaugh make you believe that if you lick enough of their boots and carry enough of their water.. that they will someday welcome you into their elite inner circles? gimme a break..for they wont.

for the left; does swallowing enough agenda driven bs make you believe that we can have utopia? not.

again, simple common sense dictates that our old ways of shitting where we eat so that some scumbag can make another $.25 is frickin stupid..and has to change regardless of agenda
 
srangara said:
Honestly, all of kirbyrj's issues are asked and answered in Dawkins' "The God Delusion." You don't have to like his tone, but you can't refute that God is the ultimate impossible thing to explain (and doesn't even fill in the gaps properly). And evolution is anything but "just a theory" and at all random.
Click to expand...

Dawkins is a buffoon. His bias comes out clearly, specifically that religion and science cannot EVER be compatible. Dawkins is no "truth seeking" individual. He is a militant athiest bent on righting all the wrongs of religion by abolishing it. He calls religion a "mind virus." That's not the words of someone seeking truth. Those are the words of someone with an agenda. Come on, "Religion: The Root of All Evil." If you can't see the bias there, you are no better than the religious zealots you rail against.
 
In the words of the late and great George Carlin "The Earth's not going anywhere, We are".
 
You mean scientists can be competitive douches??? Shocker. News at 11. This is nothing new if you are in the scientific community. It is rather amusing that most of the general public has this idea of the 'objective' scientist in a white lab coat squirreled away in some laboratory always looking to benefit mankind.

Most of the scientists I know are just like most other people I know: they can be lazy, vain, petty, overly competitive, jealous, greedy etc etc. Yes, they freeze out other scientists in competition for grant money, get lazy with statistical results, have inane squabbles in peer reviewed journals and try to undermine the reputation of their rivals.

So I ask you, so what? These emails don't prove or disprove anything except the nature of the human condition.
 
Did any of you actually read the source code from the leaked CRU data?
How about the HARRY_READ_ME ?
 
Hahaha. So now this thread has become a discussion of evolution. In that cast, I'm out..well, okay, I just have to respond to this one post:

kirbyrj said:
2). Mathematically speaking, it's impossible given that time and chance would lead to human beings in their current form. By mathmatically impossible, I mean that the probability of what you see around you existing is so slim that for all intents and purposes, it is impossible.
Click to expand...

I would say the probability of what I see around me existing is closer to 100%. Otherwise I wouldn't see it, would I? ;)
 
kirbyrj said:
2). Mathematically speaking, it's impossible given that time and chance would lead to human beings in their current form. By mathmatically impossible, I mean that the probability of what you see around you existing is so slim that for all intents and purposes, it is impossible.

I'm sure I can think of others, but that's just what I have a problem with.
Click to expand...

Bad math for the win eh?
Pick up a deck of cards.
Shuffle them and take of the top card again and again and lay it out in a row.
Now calculate the probability of you getting that exact line of cards.

Then you will relaise why Dembski's bad creationist math is useless....and debunked.
 
Atech said:
Bad math for the win eh?
Pick up a deck of cards.
Shuffle them and take of the top card again and again and lay it out in a row.
Now calculate the probability of you getting that exact line of cards.

Then you will relaise why Dembski's bad creationist math is useless....and debunked.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that's exactly how it works. Perform this experiment, and you'll most likely get an order of cards an ordinary person would refer to as "random," as it would exhibit no notable patterns. Your draw would most likely have high entropy. It is true that every order of cards has an equal probability of being drawn; however, there are many more possible high-entropy draws than low-entropy draws. Therefore, the probability of a low-entropy draw is very low.

The argument still works, however, as the entropy of our universe as a whole is very high (and always increasing). The existence of humans is merely a statistical anomaly. In the 52 card experiment, the odds of you getting an entire suit in order are very low, but the odds of you getting two consecutive numbers somewhere in the draw are reasonably high.
 
HOCP4ME said:
I'm not sure if that's exactly how it works. Perform this experiment, and you'll most likely get an order of cards an ordinary person would refer to as "random," as it would exhibit no notable patterns. Your draw would most likely have high entropy. It is true that every order of cards has an equal probability of being drawn; however, there are many more possible high-entropy draws than low-entropy draws. Therefore, the probability of a low-entropy draw is very low.

The argument still works, however, as the entropy of our universe as a whole is very high (and always increasing). The existence of humans is merely a statistical anomaly. In the 52 card experiment, the odds of you getting an entire suit in order are very low, but the odds of you getting two consecutive numbers somewhere in the draw are reasonably high.
Click to expand...

Using Demski's flawed pseudo-math is only something advocates of creationism (mis)uses:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/stillbad.cfm

It's like with everything else from the creationistic camp:
PSEUDO-

Be it pseudo-science...or pseudo-math.

Like always: "Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution, ignorance is"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top