Bad couple of days for Global Warming alarmists - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

uno · 07-28-2011, 11:21 PM

O! onwebcam, what was that evidence of human(oid?)s you said you've seen that were billions of years old?

onwebcam · 07-28-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uno

O! onwebcam, what was that evidence of human(oid?)s you said you've seen that were billions of years old?

I never said billions. May have said millions. And there have been several found

Just one

6-Million-Year-Old Human Ancestor 1st to Walk Upright?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-ancestor.html

They've found one more recently that is dated somewhere around 13-15 million.

Bill8 · 07-29-2011, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

We can start here

World may not be warming, say scientists

Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA?s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+...ticle15310.htm

First, let me say this - you have to stop trusting teh commercial media, and especially the B-gtade comercial media and blogosphere, to give you information. This is an article from a basically unknown site, I'm pretty familiar with the high traffic well regarded tech and science sites and I can't recall ever seeing thsi one mentioned in any of most reliable sources. That shoudl be your first clue - check the provenance of the source.

I'm not saying that it might not have validity, just pointing out the shaky provenance, and telling you you have to distrust the media more than you do.

Clearly, you have a preconceived notion that leads you to trust anti-AGW articles even from bad sources, and so far I have not seen you post a single source that has reasonable authprity, except, one might say, the negative authority of McIntyre, who, even tho he has sone soem questionable things, has also made some vailid arguments.

Okay, lets look at the actual information.

Your article refers to a sciencedaily article, Now, sciencedaily is actually a well regarded source, but like livescience it is still popular science media, it is NOT authoritative, but it is closely watche dby many people and is usually pretty reliable.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0512120523.htm here's the link, which I followed from your article. The article is from 2008.

Your dailytech blog article is titled: NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

The science daily article is titled: Solar Variability: Striking A Balance With Climate Change

Now lets see, does that article seem to say that a "NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming". Reading. Reading.

No. No. Nowhere, as far as I can tell.

Let me reread your posted article, and see if that clarifies what they are saying.

Okay - now here's where the distorting of information by the commercial media occurs.

This guy's summary goes:

Quote:

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

But he doesn't support it at all.

Of course the sun has caused variaility in the past, both by itself, and in combination with varios planetary amd atmosphereic events. So has greenhouse gasses, for example during the carboniferous era, and before that after the siberian volcanic extinction event. But the article doesn't say a thing that supports this guys conclusion. He is basically spinning out propaganda out of whole cloth without offering a single point to back up his claim.

This is the problem right here - you think you have offered me some kind of argument or evidence, but the actual evidence DOES NOT SAY what you think it says, and the media source you are trusting has ginned up his conclusion with no basis, saying something that is neither said nor implied in the source article.

AND, neither your article, NOR the sciencedaily article, is authoritative. Both of these are commercial media, making money off your page views and the ads. You have to stop trusting the media!

Bill8 · 07-29-2011, 12:17 AM

BTW, this original source article, the one from NASA, is now out of date, it looks to be based on satellite observations from 2004 to 2006, and at least one new satelite was launched to study planetary insolation and solar radience, so we shoudl be looking for the newest inforamtion and conclusions.

Thats important when assessing science information. You have to know the provenance of the information, WHERE it comes from and who's authority it has, and you also need to be aware of the date of the information, because science changes over time, thats the nature of how the scientific method works.

I looked at the NASA website for a copy of the article on which this was based but have not found it yet.

Oddly, from teh clues I have gotten in that search, it does not look like the source article was actually a scientific report, nor a peer reviewed paper. It's source author, Rani Gran, is a nasa public relations specialist.

So, based on what I have seen so far, both the science daily and daily tech articles are based on a PR report, not on anything we would call climate science, and definitely not anything peer reviewed.

This is why you must NEVER TRUST THE MEDIA!

onwebcam · 07-29-2011, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

BTW, this original source article, the one from NASA, is now out of date, it looks to be based on satellite observations from 2004 to 2006, and at least one new satelite was launched to study planetary insolation and solar radience, so we shoudl be looking for the newest inforamtion and conclusions.

Thats important when assessing science information. You have to know the provenance of the information, WHERE it comes from and who's authority it has, and you also need to be aware of the date of the information, because science changes over time, thats the nature of how the scientific method works.

I looked at the NASA website for a copy of the article on which this was based but have not found it yet.

Oddly, from teh clues I have gotten in that search, it does not look like the source article was actually a scientific report, nor a peer reviewed paper. It's source author, Rani Gran, is a nasa public relations specialist.

So, based on what I have seen so far, both the science daily and daily tech articles are based on a PR report, not on anything we would call climate science, and definitely not anything peer reviewed.

This is why you must NEVER TRUST THE MEDIA!

The original nasa article

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsyst...riability.html

ANother even years older

March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...rradiance.html

More recent activity?

Solar Climate Change: NASA reports of extraordinary solar flare, warns of communication disturbance: Updated with Media Links
Wednesday, June 8th 2011, 5:09 AM EDT

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7817

Solar irradiance

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Another referring to the article you shot down

Research scientists at the University of Alabama (UA) in Huntsville, USA, have suggested that global warming is not occuring at the rapid rate shown by model-based forecasts.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the UA’s Earth System Science Center , and his colleague Dr. Danny Braswell claim data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

http://www.irishweatheronline.com/ne...comment-page-1

Solar Cycle Prediction

(Updated 2011/07/01)

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

Bill8 · 07-29-2011, 02:15 AM

so, give me your summary of what you think these things say. Then I'll give you mine, and we can take a look at the information and see wether we can support our summaries.

I did not "shoot down" your original article post, I gave you a counterargument to it from a usually more reliable source on science news than Yahoo and Forbes.

It's going to take the science community at least a year to asses this information and Spencer's processing of the satelite measurements and instrument readings.

You have to understand that Spencers article was not posted in the usual peer review journals, it was posted in an open access online journal, not in a peer-reviewed climate science journal in which it would be expected to be checked before publishing.

What this means is simply this - that article has not yet been subjected to ANY peer review, and it is only a few days old. Nobody has had a chance to look at the numbers and check the hypothesis and conclusions.

If some single lone scientist published a paper in a non peer reviewed open access online journal saying they had numbers proving that the earth would warm 10 degrees in the next decade, you would be justifiably suspicious. But because this guy is saying something that MIGHT agree with your politics, you are ready to jump on it, just like Forbes, a magazine of the corporatists, the same ones who got that $16 trillion, wants you to.

You need to be more suspicious, and you need to be more suspicious of ALL media, not just the ones you think for the moment aupport your beliefs.

So, we will see what the conclusions are when the scientists have had teh chance to look at the information. That will take months at least. Frankly, it's going to have to be re-researched, because publishing in an open access online journal is a bit like a corporation publishing it's shareholder report on say, motleyfool.

It's not how peer review works.

You in particular should be especially suspicious of Forbes. You know what the corporatists are capable of when it comes to manipulating informationm and the media.

Bill8 · 07-29-2011, 02:29 AM

Wow that nasa article by Rani Gran is terrible. Talk about saying nothing.

I will be interested in hearing what you think are the takeaway points from that piece of pr tripe.

Nasa, also, should not be trusted, in case you didn't know. It's also a government organization, and has far fewer peer review restrictions on it than say NOAA.

NOAA is a government organization too, but because they provide the observtion data that scientists around the word use, they are subject to a much higher level of vetting and factchecking.

maxxtro · 07-29-2011, 03:15 AM

ManBearPig is very real. You should not make fun of things like that.

uno · 07-30-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I never said billions. May have said millions. And there have been several found

Just one

6-Million-Year-Old Human Ancestor 1st to Walk Upright?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-ancestor.html

They've found one more recently that is dated somewhere around 13-15 million.

Yeah it must have been a typo or something, but I clearly remember reading that from you. I can't be bothered to look through your posts to find it.

Bill8 · 07-30-2011, 06:26 PM

Bad astronomy weighed in on the spencer article. Bad astronomy is still media, but is right up there among the best regarded of the "science guys".

I was rather surprised to see that Real Climate had already published an article about it. Real Climate is simply stated the absolute top of the popularly accessibel sites about climatem it is where the actual climate scientists talk to the public, it;s very advanced at times, difficult to follow even for someone like me.

Both Bad Astronomy and Real Climate said pretty much that Spencer's article was not good.

Turns out Spencer is has a history of publishing bad articles.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Quote:

Satellite Research Refuted

According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.

And Spencer is funded by - wait for it - Exxon.

Quote:

Spencer and the Heartland Institute

Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that "anti-smoking advocates" are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.

Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute

Spencer is listed as an "Expert" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Spencer and ICECAP

Spencer is listed as an "expert" by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP).

ICECAP is a global warming skeptic organization that believes we should be preparing ourselves for the next ice age.

ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Joseph D'Aleo. SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Spencer and Tech Central Station

Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.

Spencer, Blunder, Swindle and Confusion

Spencer also operates his own blog on global warming in which he describes himself as a "climatologist, author, [and] former NASA scientist." On his blog, Spencer states that "the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming in the last 100 years."

Spencer also published a book in April, 2010, titled The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climatologists which is prominently advertised on his blog. Apart from concluding that global warming is likely caused by a natural cycle, Blunder poses the question, that "maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing."

Spencer published Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor in 2008. Confusion is described as "forsaking blindingly technical statistics" about global warming to describe the issue in "simple terms." In other words, the book tries to sidestep any valid research on climate change.

Roy Spencer also appeared on the notorious film The Great Global Warming Swindle to talk about the "Great Science Funding Conspiracy." Spencer claims that "climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding."

So, basically Spencer is a prominent global warming denier.

Which means he is hardly unbiased. There are plenty of less biased satelite measurment experts, in a few months we should have comment from other such experts.

However, because science is what it is, actual climate scientists will certainly read his article and see wether or not his conclusions have merit.

I guess I should post what Bad Astronomy and Real Climate had to say.

Bill8 · 07-31-2011, 12:00 AM

I didn't think all that much of the bad astronomy post, yes it provides background info on Spencer, but I would call it an opinion piece mainly as far as it's scientific usefulness goes.

Mostly it quotes from the livescience article I already posted, so no need to repeat that stuff.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...ming-alarmism/

Quote:

I did some poking around on the web, and sure enough a lot of far-right blogs are diving on this red meat, simply repeating the claims of the Forbes article. I wonder how many of them actually read the paper or sought outside opinions?

And in this case, those outside opinions are very important. Why? Because of Dr. Spencer?s background: you may find this discussion of him interesting. He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from ? can you guess? ? ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil. Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer.

I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it?s relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism. Heck, even a conservative judge ruled it to be so in the now-famous Dover lawsuit. Anyone who dumps all of biological science in favor of provably wrong antiscience should raise alarm bells in your head, and their claims should be examined with an even more skeptical eye.

It?s too bad, really. I?m not a fan of ad hominems, but the recent attacks on the science of climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang by the far right ? and on medicine by the far left ? make it necessary to know more about the authors when reading articles. If you simply accept what they say without doing due diligence, you may be led down a road that leads well away from reality.

Bill8 · 08-01-2011, 06:58 PM

Ahhh, now this is interesting, Spencer himself, and another expert who says Spencer's article is good, are now saying, essentially, that the right blogosphere has misunderstood the article and overstated their claims that this refutes global warming theory.

So says AP science... BTW, still media.

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20110...ics_study.html

The critical lines are:

"The author of the scientific study is Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville, a prominent climate skeptic. But even he says some bloggers are overstating what the research found."

"Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found. Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what's being written about Spencer's study by nonscientists "has no basis in reality.""

Here's the article:

Quote:

Skeptic's small cloud study renews climate rancor

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Posted Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:42pm PDT
.
- A study on how much heat in Earth's atmosphere is caused by cloud cover has heated up the climate change blogosphere even as it is dismissed by many scientists.

Several mainstream climate scientists call the study's conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in global warming theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared. The study in the journal Remote Sensing questions the accuracy of climate computer models and got attention when a lawyer for the conservative Heartland Institute wrote an opinion piece on it.

The author of the scientific study is Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville, a prominent climate skeptic. But even he says some bloggers are overstating what the research found. Spencer's study is based on satellite data from 2000 to 2010 and is one of a handful of studies he's done that are part of an ongoing debate among a few scientists.

His research looked at cause and effect of clouds and warming. Contrary to the analysis of a majority of studies, his found that for the past decade, variations in clouds seemed more a cause of warming than an effect. More than anything, he said, his study found that mainstream research and models don't match the 10 years of data he examined. Spencer's study concludes the question of clouds' role in heating "remains an unsolved problem."

Spencer, who uses what he calls a simple model without looking at ocean heat or El Nino effects, finds fault with the more complicated models often run by mainstream climate scientists.

At least 10 climate scientists reached by The Associated Press found technical or theoretical faults with Spencer's study or its conclusions. They criticized the short time period he studied and his failure to consider the effects of the ocean and other factors. They also note that the paper appears in a journal that mostly deals with the nuts-and-bolts of satellite data and not interpreting the climate.

"This is a very bad paper and is demonstrably wrong," said Richard Somerville, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. "It is getting a lot of attention only because of noise in the blogosphere."

Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found. Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what's being written about Spencer's study by nonscientists "has no basis in reality."

I bolded the part that says Spencer used a very simple model. That was Real Climate's main criticism, that the model Spencer used was so simple that it couldn't be trusted, and couldn't be used to test the predictions of teh much more complex standard models.

It will be month's yet before the actual climate scientists tests of the paper's main argument are completed.

I read the paper, it's written in mind boggling academic jibber jabber- but I'll say that it ddn't seem to me to be making any major claims, it did not come out and say that it had proven or disproven anything.

If you like we can look at the spencer article itself.

Quote:

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest
source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further
evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the
radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That
these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag
regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcingfeedback
model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000-2010 depart substantially in the
direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find it is not possible with current methods to quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks
which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the
climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between
radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...diagnos_11.pdf

Bill8 · 08-01-2011, 06:59 PM

Turns out the polar bear scientist thing may be more interesting that I first thought.

We may be hearing more about it soon.

Bill8 · 08-01-2011, 07:07 PM

Media matters has an article that says some interesting things.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201108010025

Quote:

Spencer thinks climate models are overestimating the magnitude of the positive feedbacks, but concedes that his paper doesn't prove that to be the case. Rather, he says his study had the limited aim of responding to a previous publication by Andy Dessler of Texas A&M University which estimated cloud feedback in a way Spencer believes is faulty. "Our paper would never have been written if not for the need to answer Dessler's paper," he said.

Spencer's study compared temperature measurements from 2000-2010 to data from a NASA satellite on how much energy is leaving the atmosphere. He then compared that information to six climate models ("the three most sensitive models and the three least sensitive models") over the 1900-1999 period and found what he calls "huge discrepancies" between the models and the observations regarding the relationship between temperature changes and the energy radiated. But he added: "While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate sensitivity of the real climate system," a variety of other factors affecting the statistics "preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is."

In response to Spencer's paper NCAR scientists Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo ran their own comparison of the models and the observations and concluded that the results depend largely on which models are chosen. In other words, if you select the models in a different way from the 6 used by Spencer, the "huge discrepancies" disappear. Trenberth and Fasullo concluded that "there are some good models and some not so good," but "the net result is that the models agree within reasonable bounds with the observations." They also stated that Spencer's paper "has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text."

In the paper, Spencer goes on to use what's called a simple climate model to interpret his results and concludes that you can't estimate feedback from satellite data because "natural cloud variations" driving temperature changes can be mistaken for cloud feedback. This conclusion does not speak to the validity of the climate models but rather to the validity of attempts to test the models' estimates of climate sensitivity with satellite observations. For their part, Trenberth and others take issue with Spencer's model and say temperature changes drive cloud behavior, not the other way around.

Still media, but it does look like the media matter authors contacted Spencer and asked him some questions.

Grapesoda · 08-01-2011, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation

JUNEAU, Alaska?Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement. Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...investigation/

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

this just in: the earth has been warming and cooling for 4.5 million years

SmokeyTheBear · 08-02-2011, 11:01 AM

humans have no impact on earth.. i read it on the internats

_Richard_ · 08-02-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation

JUNEAU, Alaska?Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement. Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...investigation/

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

i want to believe.

Bill8 · 08-02-2011, 05:09 PM

ABC is reporting that earlier reports that the polar bear scienctist guy was NOT, as originally reported, (for instance by OP here) fired for scientific misconduct.

He was fired for "management issues".

Supposedly, the backstory is Obama wants to give drilling rights to exxon, and he opposes it.

So they sacked him.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...inglePage=true

Quote:

The government's suspension of an Arctic scientist was related to how a polar bear research project was awarded and managed and not his earlier scientific work detailing drowned polar bears, a watchdog group said Monday.

Charles Monnett, a U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation biologist, was placed on administrative leave July 18, pending final results of an inspector general's investigation into "integrity issues."

The advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility said he was never told why he was suspended or what the focus of the investigation was.

However, Monnett received a letter dated July 29 from Special Agent Eric May in the Department of the Interior's inspector general's office, outlining the focus of the investigation, which is related to the study being conducted jointly with a Canadian university. He asked Monnett to be prepared to answer further questions in an Aug. 9 interview.

"We intend to discuss actions taken in your official capacity as a biologist and any collateral duties involving contracts as an official of the U.S. Government," May wrote in the letter, a copy of which was provided by the advocacy group. "Those actions include the procurement of a sole source, cost-reimbursable contract with the University of Alberta to conduct a study titled 'Populations and Sources of the Recruitment in Polar Bears.'"

Monnett coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology and had duties that included managing about $50 million worth of studies.

A memo dated July 13, sent to Monnett by contracting officer Celeste H. Rueffert, said that information raised by the investigation "causes us to have concerns about your ability to act as the Contracting Officer's Representative in an impartial and objective manner on the subject contract."

A stop-work order was issued that same day for the polar bear tracking study.

"The stop-work order has now been rescinded, and the study is continuing to move forward," ocean energy management bureau spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said in an email to The Associated Press on Monday.

I've read about half a dozen articles about this now - supposedly more scandal may be breaking soon, about the oil company influence, we shall see. If I remember I will get the sources for those pieces.

So you wingers should be happy, your buttboy Obama had him canned to clear the way for oil leasing.

And you got a twofer, cuz your pet media first tried to say it was for scientific misconduct. Oil leases and smearing a biologist, a corporate wetdream. I know you will forget that the story changed afterwards. The rightwing memory is so wonderfully flexible.

07-28-2011, 11:21 PM	#51
uno RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: NYC Area Posts: 18,450	O! onwebcam, what was that evidence of human(oid?)s you said you've seen that were billions of years old? __________________ -uno icq: 111-914 CrazyBabe.com - porn art MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!

07-29-2011, 02:15 AM	#56
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	so, give me your summary of what you think these things say. Then I'll give you mine, and we can take a look at the information and see wether we can support our summaries. I did not "shoot down" your original article post, I gave you a counterargument to it from a usually more reliable source on science news than Yahoo and Forbes. It's going to take the science community at least a year to asses this information and Spencer's processing of the satelite measurements and instrument readings. You have to understand that Spencers article was not posted in the usual peer review journals, it was posted in an open access online journal, not in a peer-reviewed climate science journal in which it would be expected to be checked before publishing. What this means is simply this - that article has not yet been subjected to ANY peer review, and it is only a few days old. Nobody has had a chance to look at the numbers and check the hypothesis and conclusions. If some single lone scientist published a paper in a non peer reviewed open access online journal saying they had numbers proving that the earth would warm 10 degrees in the next decade, you would be justifiably suspicious. But because this guy is saying something that MIGHT agree with your politics, you are ready to jump on it, just like Forbes, a magazine of the corporatists, the same ones who got that $16 trillion, wants you to. You need to be more suspicious, and you need to be more suspicious of ALL media, not just the ones you think for the moment aupport your beliefs. So, we will see what the conclusions are when the scientists have had teh chance to look at the information. That will take months at least. Frankly, it's going to have to be re-researched, because publishing in an open access online journal is a bit like a corporation publishing it's shareholder report on say, motleyfool. It's not how peer review works. You in particular should be especially suspicious of Forbes. You know what the corporatists are capable of when it comes to manipulating informationm and the media. Last edited by Bill8; 07-29-2011 at 02:30 AM..

07-29-2011, 03:15 AM	#58
maxxtro Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: EU Posts: 561	ManBearPig is very real. You should not make fun of things like that. __________________

08-02-2011, 11:01 AM	#66
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	humans have no impact on earth.. i read it on the internats __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

07-29-2011, 12:17 AM	#54
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	BTW, this original source article, the one from NASA, is now out of date, it looks to be based on satellite observations from 2004 to 2006, and at least one new satelite was launched to study planetary insolation and solar radience, so we shoudl be looking for the newest inforamtion and conclusions. Thats important when assessing science information. You have to know the provenance of the information, WHERE it comes from and who's authority it has, and you also need to be aware of the date of the information, because science changes over time, thats the nature of how the scientific method works. I looked at the NASA website for a copy of the article on which this was based but have not found it yet. Oddly, from teh clues I have gotten in that search, it does not look like the source article was actually a scientific report, nor a peer reviewed paper. It's source author, Rani Gran, is a nasa public relations specialist. So, based on what I have seen so far, both the science daily and daily tech articles are based on a PR report, not on anything we would call climate science, and definitely not anything peer reviewed. This is why you must NEVER TRUST THE MEDIA!

07-29-2011, 02:29 AM	#57
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	Wow that nasa article by Rani Gran is terrible. Talk about saying nothing. I will be interested in hearing what you think are the takeaway points from that piece of pr tripe. Nasa, also, should not be trusted, in case you didn't know. It's also a government organization, and has far fewer peer review restrictions on it than say NOAA. NOAA is a government organization too, but because they provide the observtion data that scientists around the word use, they are subject to a much higher level of vetting and factchecking.

08-01-2011, 06:59 PM	#63
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	Turns out the polar bear scientist thing may be more interesting that I first thought. We may be hearing more about it soon.