[002]
CrystalDragon
Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
** [[JustifiedTrope Justified]] in that anyone with a basic understanding of climatology knew [[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/why_climatologists_used_the_tr.php the accusations of fraud were laughable.]] To summarize: global warming denialists (illegally) hacked into a research group\'s servers and found out that in one researcher mentions in an e-mail that he used a \
to:
** [[JustifiedTrope Justified]] in that anyone with a basic understanding of climatology knew [[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/why_climatologists_used_the_tr.php the accusations of fraud were laughable.]] To summarize: global warming denialists (illegally) hacked into a research group\\\'s servers and found out that in one researcher mentions in an e-mail that he used a \\\"trick\\\" to \\\"hide the decline\\\", which denialists (and FOX) immediately assumed was proof that the researchers had been lying to the public about increasing temperatures all along. If they\\\'d bothered to read the rest of the e-mails, they\\\'d have known that the researcher was referring not to an actual decline in temperature but to a measured decline in temperature when using tree rings as a meter. Tree rings tend to be larger in warmer years, which allows [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendochronology dendochronologists]] to estimate the average temperature of the year when the tree ring was formed. This method has broken down in recent years as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and a variety of other factors resulting from that shift. Tree rings are getting smaller (the \\\"decline\\\" referred to in the e-mail), while thermometers show that the planet is getting warmer. The \\\"trick\\\" referred to was incorporating data from other sources into the researcher\\\'s measurements, which was blown out of proportion in the media. Ignoring \\\"Climategate\\\" was not {{Worst News Judgement Ever}}, though focusing on Tiger Woods instead of \\\'\\\'any other news story\\\'\\\' was.
*** If the tree ring metric has broken down in recent years, it isn\\\'t valid. Therefore, all the tree ring data must be discarded. Attempting to conceal that fact to get research grants is fraud.
**** I wonder if [[http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=3875756 this]] sums up sufficiently the conduct of the above troper.
**** Or, it\\\'s not valid in recent years, and is valid in other years. Furthermore, publishing a result in Nature, one of the world\\\'s most prestigious science journals, probably doesn\\\'t constitute concealment of that result.
*** More to the point, the climatologists are on record of staying the validity of the evidence isn\\\'t important, but getting the message out over the deniers is. That\\\'s the statement that\\\'s chilling, that they are so right and the deniers so wrong that there can not be legitimate scientific doubt or discussion because some people might not be convinced. That thus leads many people to doubt far more of the data when it shows what some climatologists think must be done with bad data.
**** Out of curiosity, who are the climatologists saying those things and is there reason to believe that the climatologists in general share such sentiment? Also, is the above troper sure that the climatologist(s) in question didn\\\'t mean that the challenge is not getting valid evidence but getting people to believe that man-made global warming is serious problem (In the sense that it is difficult to get people to believe despite there being notable amount of valid evidence)?[[hottip:*:Besides, it can be yet another form of DoubleStandard to hold the behavior of some individual climatologists against climatologists in general while refusing to hold the behavior of people like [[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/books/14cric.html?_r=1 Michael Crichton]] and [[http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0321climate_swindle_the.php Martin Durkin]] against climate sceptics in general.]]
** Over in sunny Australia, this troper was watching the news headlines on tv of an evening. The news for that day concerned a bombing, a serious and important event, another slightly less serious and important event, and Tiger\\\'s press conference about his return to golf. They ran in this order: Tiger, semi-serious & important event, serious and important event, \\\'\\\'bombing\\\'\\\'. You could almost say that they were doing a countdown to that day\\\'s most important news article!
**The same happened with his return to golf, which was second or even first priority on the news. Wonderfully parodied by \\\'\\\'PrivateEye\\\'\\\', who ran the headline \\\"Man Who Plays Golf Plays Golf\\\".
I note the last two seem much more legitimate, though, if separated from the whole Climategate brouhaha. Feel free to place them back in.
*** If the tree ring metric has broken down in recent years, it isn\\\'t valid. Therefore, all the tree ring data must be discarded. Attempting to conceal that fact to get research grants is fraud.
**** I wonder if [[http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=3875756 this]] sums up sufficiently the conduct of the above troper.
**** Or, it\\\'s not valid in recent years, and is valid in other years. Furthermore, publishing a result in Nature, one of the world\\\'s most prestigious science journals, probably doesn\\\'t constitute concealment of that result.
*** More to the point, the climatologists are on record of staying the validity of the evidence isn\\\'t important, but getting the message out over the deniers is. That\\\'s the statement that\\\'s chilling, that they are so right and the deniers so wrong that there can not be legitimate scientific doubt or discussion because some people might not be convinced. That thus leads many people to doubt far more of the data when it shows what some climatologists think must be done with bad data.
**** Out of curiosity, who are the climatologists saying those things and is there reason to believe that the climatologists in general share such sentiment? Also, is the above troper sure that the climatologist(s) in question didn\\\'t mean that the challenge is not getting valid evidence but getting people to believe that man-made global warming is serious problem (In the sense that it is difficult to get people to believe despite there being notable amount of valid evidence)?[[hottip:*:Besides, it can be yet another form of DoubleStandard to hold the behavior of some individual climatologists against climatologists in general while refusing to hold the behavior of people like [[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/books/14cric.html?_r=1 Michael Crichton]] and [[http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0321climate_swindle_the.php Martin Durkin]] against climate sceptics in general.]]
** Over in sunny Australia, this troper was watching the news headlines on tv of an evening. The news for that day concerned a bombing, a serious and important event, another slightly less serious and important event, and Tiger\\\'s press conference about his return to golf. They ran in this order: Tiger, semi-serious & important event, serious and important event, \\\'\\\'bombing\\\'\\\'. You could almost say that they were doing a countdown to that day\\\'s most important news article!
**The same happened with his return to golf, which was second or even first priority on the news. Wonderfully parodied by \\\'\\\'PrivateEye\\\'\\\', who ran the headline \\\"Man Who Plays Golf Plays Golf\\\".
I note the last two seem much more legitimate, though, if separated from the whole Climategate brouhaha. Feel free to place them back in.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
** [[JustifiedTrope Justified]] in that anyone with a basic understanding of climatology knew [[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/why_climatologists_used_the_tr.php the accusations of fraud were laughable.]] To summarize: global warming denialists (illegally) hacked into a research group\'s servers and found out that in one researcher mentions in an e-mail that he used a \
to:
** [[JustifiedTrope Justified]] in that anyone with a basic understanding of climatology knew [[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/why_climatologists_used_the_tr.php the accusations of fraud were laughable.]] To summarize: global warming denialists (illegally) hacked into a research group\\\'s servers and found out that in one researcher mentions in an e-mail that he used a \\\"trick\\\" to \\\"hide the decline\\\", which denialists (and FOX) immediately assumed was proof that the researchers had been lying to the public about increasing temperatures all along. If they\\\'d bothered to read the rest of the e-mails, they\\\'d have known that the researcher was referring not to an actual decline in temperature but to a measured decline in temperature when using tree rings as a meter. Tree rings tend to be larger in warmer years, which allows [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendochronology dendochronologists]] to estimate the average temperature of the year when the tree ring was formed. This method has broken down in recent years as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and a variety of other factors resulting from that shift. Tree rings are getting smaller (the \\\"decline\\\" referred to in the e-mail), while thermometers show that the planet is getting warmer. The \\\"trick\\\" referred to was incorporating data from other sources into the researcher\\\'s measurements, which was blown out of proportion in the media. Ignoring \\\"Climategate\\\" was not {{Worst News Judgement Ever}}, though focusing on Tiger Woods instead of \\\'\\\'any other news story\\\'\\\' was.
*** If the tree ring metric has broken down in recent years, it isn\\\'t valid. Therefore, all the tree ring data must be discarded. Attempting to conceal that fact to get research grants is fraud.
**** I wonder if [[http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=3875756 this]] sums up sufficiently the conduct of the above troper.
*** More to the point, the climatologists are on record of staying the validity of the evidence isn\\\'t important, but getting the message out over the deniers is. That\\\'s the statement that\\\'s chilling, that they are so right and the deniers so wrong that there can not be legitimate scientific doubt or discussion because some people might not be convinced. That thus leads many people to doubt far more of the data when it shows what some climatologists think must be done with bad data.
**** Out of curiosity, who are the climatologists saying those things and is there reason to believe that the climatologists in general share such sentiment? Also, is the above troper sure that the climatologist(s) in question didn\\\'t mean that the challenge is not getting valid evidence but getting people to believe that man-made global warming is serious problem (In the sense that it is difficult to get people to believe despite there being notable amount of valid evidence)?[[hottip:*:Besides, it can be yet another form of DoubleStandard to hold the behavior of some individual climatologists against climatologists in general while refusing to hold the behavior of people like [[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/books/14cric.html?_r=1 Michael Crichton]] and [[http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0321climate_swindle_the.php Martin Durkin]] against climate sceptics in general.]]
** Over in sunny Australia, this troper was watching the news headlines on tv of an evening. The news for that day concerned a bombing, a serious and important event, another slightly less serious and important event, and Tiger\\\'s press conference about his return to golf. They ran in this order: Tiger, semi-serious & important event, serious and important event, \\\'\\\'bombing\\\'\\\'. You could almost say that they were doing a countdown to that day\\\'s most important news article!
**The same happened with his return to golf, which was second or even first priority on the news. Wonderfully parodied by \\\'\\\'PrivateEye\\\'\\\', who ran the headline \\\"Man Who Plays Golf Plays Golf\\\".
I note the last two seem much more legitimate, though, if separated from the whole Climategate brouhaha. Feel free to place them back in.
*** If the tree ring metric has broken down in recent years, it isn\\\'t valid. Therefore, all the tree ring data must be discarded. Attempting to conceal that fact to get research grants is fraud.
**** I wonder if [[http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=3875756 this]] sums up sufficiently the conduct of the above troper.
*** More to the point, the climatologists are on record of staying the validity of the evidence isn\\\'t important, but getting the message out over the deniers is. That\\\'s the statement that\\\'s chilling, that they are so right and the deniers so wrong that there can not be legitimate scientific doubt or discussion because some people might not be convinced. That thus leads many people to doubt far more of the data when it shows what some climatologists think must be done with bad data.
**** Out of curiosity, who are the climatologists saying those things and is there reason to believe that the climatologists in general share such sentiment? Also, is the above troper sure that the climatologist(s) in question didn\\\'t mean that the challenge is not getting valid evidence but getting people to believe that man-made global warming is serious problem (In the sense that it is difficult to get people to believe despite there being notable amount of valid evidence)?[[hottip:*:Besides, it can be yet another form of DoubleStandard to hold the behavior of some individual climatologists against climatologists in general while refusing to hold the behavior of people like [[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/books/14cric.html?_r=1 Michael Crichton]] and [[http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0321climate_swindle_the.php Martin Durkin]] against climate sceptics in general.]]
** Over in sunny Australia, this troper was watching the news headlines on tv of an evening. The news for that day concerned a bombing, a serious and important event, another slightly less serious and important event, and Tiger\\\'s press conference about his return to golf. They ran in this order: Tiger, semi-serious & important event, serious and important event, \\\'\\\'bombing\\\'\\\'. You could almost say that they were doing a countdown to that day\\\'s most important news article!
**The same happened with his return to golf, which was second or even first priority on the news. Wonderfully parodied by \\\'\\\'PrivateEye\\\'\\\', who ran the headline \\\"Man Who Plays Golf Plays Golf\\\".
I note the last two seem much more legitimate, though, if separated from the whole Climategate brouhaha. Feel free to place them back in.
