On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 03:28, Steven Parker <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Edward > > Sorry mate no fallacy,
How do you know? You ignored the very fact that I have evidence. > no conspiracy IPCC climate scientists actually > have been scandousily busted cooking and destroying the data on > global warming, Not so. There are a number of cases of cooked data, where the malefactor was drummed out of the scientific community. This isn't one of them. In any case, one researcher, or a few researchers, cooking data says nothing about the validity of the rest of the investigators in the field. To argue otherwise is a clear evidence that you have come to a predetermined conclusion, and you are cherry-picking data to support it, following the lead of the anti-scientific Global Warming deniers. My question to you is, Why do you want Global Warming to be false? > this should be welcomed by wikieducators with an open > mind (No denial) Having an open mind does not mean allowing one's brain to fall out. > for what this means fro teaching (The scientific > process) why not give students links to this controversy, have a a > learning activity on climate change science, denialism, crime and > fraud, sociology, behaviorism, media, computer hacking you name it. Maybe, but it should be about real fraud. > I'll not try to convince you on what this means for the global warming > science that's up to you, read the climategate info though it sounds > like you have it figured out as conspiracy (ok) for others Google > "climategate" and read the news, I told you I did that. You prefer to believe corporate shills and cranks rather than scientists on this. I can't help you, unless you are willing to do the homework yourself, rather than relying on politically motivated junk science. > there is a great student activity > within. > > http://www.google.com.au/search?q=climategate+new+zealand&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a > > I found this video interview with Dr Tim Ball rather interesting > "Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the > significance of the recently leaked emails and documents" > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac Ball is a well-known crank on other issues who doesn't really believe in chemistry. It took no effort to discover this fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball "The plain fact is there was never any evidence of CFCs affecting the ozone layer." He is one of those I had in mind when I noted that the deniers claim that models don't include factors that they do include, and that they ignore all of the facts. "Water vapor is effectively ignored in the computer models. Yes, that's right. The climate models used as the basis for the entire global warming argument do not include the effect of clouds." "Since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling." Both claims are factually incorrect, and require us to believe in a global conspiracy within all of climate science. Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. In the film, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).[11] Since then, he has also appeared numerous times on the Glenn Beck Show, with a role in the special, "Exposed: Climate of Fear." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_%28television_director%29 Always critical of environmentalism. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/04/comment.comment Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1 Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? The Guardian, July 22, 2008 As Channel 4 is once again fiercely criticised by the TV watchdog for distorting the views of climate scientists, George Monbiot lays bare the channel's shameful history of misleading its viewers on global warming > Fascinating, I'm sure there is more to follow. > > http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx > > http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/ > , > Cheers > > > > > On 11/28/09, Edward Cherlin <[email protected]> wrote: >> This turns out not to be the case. More below. >> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 23:16, Steven Parker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> "denial of the existence of global warming, or denial of the truth of >>> evolution? The space race is a product of movie special effects? The earth >>> is flat? It is difficult for me to imagine my believing such. Do they >>> deserve a hearing?" >>> >>> Some of these are obviousily very ridiculous but yes it is a real problem >>> giving controversial issues a hearing, for example alot of educational >>> resources have been created and taught to students on the existence of >>> global warming based on the impact of human carbon emissions. >>> >>> From an education point alot has been politically and personally invested >>> in >>> this premise based on IPCC data but yet only recently as I'm sure many of >>> you are aware there has been the "Climategate" controversy whereby the >>> British Climatic Research Unit's computers at the University of East >>> Anglia >>> where hacked. From this emails and documents have been published which >>> show >>> IPCC endorsed scientists engaged in the the falsification and destruction >>> of data >> >> Humpty Dumpty fallacy: Words mean only what I want them to mean, >> rather than having different meanings in different contexts. >> >> By no means. In fact, shame on you for being fooled by industry shills >> and True Believers in Conspiracy Theories. >> >> http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/26/17302/203 >> >> DS: When Phil Jones wrote in 1999, "I've just completed Mike's Nature >> trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years >> (i. e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the >> decline," what did he mean? >> >> Michael Mann: Phil Jones has publicly gone on record indicating that >> he was using the term "trick" in the sense often used by people, as in >> "bag of tricks", or "a trick to solving this problem ...", or "trick >> of the trade". In referring to our 1998 Nature article, he was >> pointing out simply the following: our proxy record ended in 1980 >> (when the proxy data set we were using terminates) so, it didn't >> include the warming of the past two decades. In our Nature article we >> therefore also showed the post-1980 instrumental data that was then >> available through 1995, so that the reconstruction could be viewed in >> the context of recent instrumental temperatures. The separate curves >> for the reconstructed temperature series and for the instrumental data >> were clearly labeled. >> >> and so on. >> >>> and vindication of "sceptical scientists" with data contrary to the >>> global warming hypothesis. >> >> Cherrypicking fallacy. >> >> Also not the case, as discussed in the same story and many others on >> Daily Kos and elsewhere. The scientists have taken account of daily >> and annual warming and cooling cycles, the cooling effect of volcanic >> aerosols and warming from volcanic CO2, variations in El Niño/La Niña, >> and a multitude of other measured and modeled effects tending to more >> or less warming at particular times. Carbon-industry pseudo-scientists >> follow the techniques pioneered by tobacco industry pseudo-scientists, >> picking out one factor or another and claiming that it invalidates the >> analysis that actually includes it, while ignoring all of the real >> data, and expecting the public not to check up on them. >> >>> i.e the science is most definitely not closed. >> >> Strawman fallacy. >> >> Science is never closed. A theory can only be closed if it is held in >> a closed mind. >> >> We are still running tests on General Relativity, such as the recently >> completed Gravity Probe B. Initial analysis suggested detection of >> frame dragging, but a problem in tracking the rotations of the test >> spheres has put that result under a cloud. It was not clear when I >> last checked whether further analysis will clear up the matter. Denial >> of global warming would be equivalent to claiming that the failure of >> this experiment to return a valid result somehow calls General >> Relativity into question, even though the GPS system couldn't possibly >> work without GR time calculations for orbiting atomic clocks. >> >> The issues in global warming do not extend to whether it is occurring. >> The measurements of global air and water temperature, and of melting >> ice and permafrost, are unequivocal. The questions are how much, how >> fast, and with what effects on sea levels, agriculture, disease, >> extinctions, and other matters that affect human well-being. >> >> It is correct to say that all global warming models have been wrong. >> This does not help the deniers, because the models have all been wrong >> in the wrong direction. All of the major indicators show that warming >> is worse than expected, and accelerating faster than predicted. >> >> Contrary to all conspiracy theories, climate models have been >> consistently conservative. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is >> apparently saturated, as it has recently begun releasing about as much >> CO2 as it absorbs. If this extends to the whole ocean, the rate of >> accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere will roughly double from the >> current rate. If the Arctic sea ice disappears, ocean currents may >> change dramatically. If the permafrost melts, it may release huge >> amounts of methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, though >> not so long-lived in the atmosphere. I could go on. >> >> As with Holocaust Denial and "Creation Science", trivial objections >> are put forward to True Believers as reasons to dispute the entire >> story, a story actually based in each case on vast records and other >> evidence. The Holocaust occurred at large numbers of sites, for which >> detailed records were kept, whether or not you can find the remains of >> the demolished gas chambers or cremation ovens at Auschwitz. Evolution >> is a fact, not a theory. Many billions of facts, in fact. We can >> discuss details of DNA, ribosomes, the genetic code, the RNA world, >> the lack of a detailed roadmap of abiogenesis, but none of the >> questions about details and unknown sequences changes our >> understanding of mutation processes and of natural and sexual >> selection. Nor do the fake fossils of human and dinosaur footprints >> together. And the AIR and WATER and ICE and DIRT and ROCKS are >> WARMING, and the oceans are getting more acid. No possible discrepancy >> in modeling or in use of easily misunderstood jargon can change those >> facts. >> >>> See: >>> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_Climatic_Research_Unit%27s_emails_hacked >>> >>> Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails - >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac >>> >>> Does this deserve a hearing? Yes most definatley otherwise an education >>> wiki >>> becomes non objective and counter to the aims of educating people into the >>> area of indoctrination. >> >> It has had a hearing, and has been extensively debunked. Do your >> homework. Search for comments on the issue using Google, and see >> whether you can tell the science from the pseudoscience. >> >>> Yes a real problem despite it being difficult to imagine. >> >> Cold fusion is a more interesting case. We are quite certain that >> chemists Fleishman and Pons believed their conclusions for a long >> time, even though physicists poked holes in every announcement, and >> published quantum mechanical analyses showing why their result was >> imossible. I can provide details if anybody needs them, or you can >> look it up. The graphs of supposed gamma ray emission from their >> experiments were physically impossible, because they showed no >> reflected gamma rays at the appropriate energy shifts. The next set of >> graphs showed the features required by that criticism, but failed to >> show others. And so on. Nevertheless, scientists tried to replicate >> their results for more than a year, without success, before giving up. >> Scientists never do an experiment or run a model just once. >> >> Deniers do no experiments and build no models, but claim that any >> single error in any scientific paper is grounds for throwing out the >> whole idea. This is based on a misunderstanding of the term >> "falsification" by Karl Popper in his book Conjectures and >> Refutations. One observation does not constitute a fact, and one fact >> does not refute an established theory. The Michelson-Morley >> experiments conducted over more than a year conclusively demonstrated >> that Classical Physics was incomplete for motion at a significant >> fraction of the speed of light, but not that it was fundamentally no >> good. Nobody abandoned physics between those experiments and >> Einstein's Relativistic explanation. We know that quantum mechanics >> and General Relativiy cannot both be complete, and in fact we expect >> that both are incomplete. But we do not throw them out. They remain >> accurate as far as they go. Someday, something new will go farther, >> and the old theories will be seen to be approximations of the new >> theory in the old realm, while the new theory explains much more in >> new realms. -- Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. http://www.earthtreasury.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
