Bad couple of days for Global Warming alarmists

[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

[vsex]

[wehateporn]

Lord Monckton Kicks Climate Change Ass

[raymor]

What about the coming ice age these guys were screaming about in the 70's then? Are we back to a global cooling catastrophe?

[Bill8]

The polar bears thing has nothing to do with global warming theory. It's an example of how the media manipulates both sides to get attention.

The media is not a valid source of information about global warming, and everyone needs to be suspicious of any information that comes from commercial media sources.

As for the radiation study, first, the article you describe was written for Forbes, and Forbes has a clear bias which I'd be happy to discuss with you if you care. My comment on polar bears in the media, and how the media cannot be trusted to provide science infomation, applies to Forbes as well.

However, global warming theory is complex, and scientists are always looking for new information that can add new elemenst to the models that are used. If this new study provides new information that peer review agrees applies, it will be added to the emerging cluster of dominant models.

That's how science works, it collects measurement, shares them, proposes possible hypothesis about what the new information means, and builds theories when those hyposthesis are confirmed or refuted by experimenst and further measurements.

The title of the article you posted tho clearly shows it's spin.

Tell you what, I'll keep my eyes open for how this new finding is assessed and try to remember to let you know.

I may make you my special project for discussion. You don't seem impossible to inform.

[Overload]

yaya ... how come ... when it comes to refusing ... its 99.9% the US folks? is your media THAT limited? really makes me wonder ... even the last goat sheppard in the sahel zone of africa has noticed the climate changes ... and yet the US is def, blind and unwilling to see ... in the end ... every other country will be making big green in GREEN technology while you rot on debts unwilling to CHANGE! ... fuck, MAROCCO is AHEAD of you already! THINK about THAT!

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

Originally Posted by Bill8

If this new study provides new information that peer review agrees applies, it will be added to the emerging cluster of dominant models.

Would you prefer IPCC peer-review?

[wehateporn]

Ultimately this all stems from the United Nations think tank The Club of Rome (look it up in their documents), who when trying to work out a way to get all the nations to accept the UN as the global government, decided that outside threats had to be used to unite us. E.g. Disease, Global Warming etc. Threats that we all need to fight together. i.e. to justify bringing taxes in for the global government, you can't have a global government without taxes.

Notice how after the Swine Flu Scam, the WHO (health arm of the UN) came out and said that since they'd played an essential role we'd now need to start paying taxes to them, as previously it was mainly funded by The Rockefellers and Bill Gates. At the Copenhagen Climate Conference they were looking to set up taxes for "Climate Change" which are really for the UN itself, inside the document they handed out it proposes that a new world government should be formed.

[wehateporn]

?The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, United Nations Think Tank

[Bill8]

To give you an example, here's a response from live science.

Now, live science is not a really strong source, it does typically represent the view of the scientific community, but it;s still media. The real science community will take weeks and months to respond - BECAUSE that's how science works, unlike the media, the science community will actually look at the data, comnpare it to other data, discuss the possibilities, and think about the implications.

Because that's how science works.

But, here's what livescience says.

http://www.livescience.com/15293-cli...oud-cover.html

Turns out Spencer describes himself as being politically motivated.

In the new paper, Spencer looked at satellite data from 2000 to 2010 to compare cloud cover and surface temperatures. Using a simple model, he linked the two, finding, he said, that clouds drive warming. His comparisons of his data with six Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models showed, he said, that the models are too sensitive (meaning some variables, such as warming, increase at the slightest change in other factors) and that carbon dioxide is not likely to cause much warming at all. [Image Gallery: Curious Clouds]

Disagreements

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to ? data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models ? is completely unclear."

Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by the satellites. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Several researchers expressed frustration that the study was attracting media attention.

"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record."

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a "gray science."

Politics and science

The science of Spencer's work proved inextricable from the political debate surrounding global warming. The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it "extremely important."

Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.

"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.

Spencer himself is up front about the politics surrounding his work. In July, he wrote on his blog that his job "has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism," and said he viewed his role as protecting "the interests of the taxpayer." When asked why his work failed to gain mainstream acceptance, Spencer cited funding as a motivation for climate change researchers to find problems with the environment.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Would you prefer IPCC peer-review?

The IPCC is a political body formed to try to inform the public about what the science community is saying. I personally don't pay much attention to it.

Nor does the IPCC do peer review, if you think it does, you have misunderstood what peer review is, sorry.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Overload

yaya ... how come ... when it comes to refusing ... its 99.9% the US folks? is your media THAT limited? really makes me wonder ... even the last goat sheppard in the sahel zone of africa has noticed the climate changes ... and yet the US is def, blind and unwilling to see ... in the end ... every other country will be making big green in GREEN technology while you rot on debts unwilling to CHANGE! ... fuck, MAROCCO is AHEAD of you already! THINK about THAT!

You should learn to argue better.

Study the subject.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Overload

even the last goat sheppard in the sahel zone of africa has noticed the climate changes ...

Really? The climate changes? HOLY FUCKSHIT BATMAN!

Originally Posted by Bill8

The IPCC is a political body formed to try to inform the public about what the science community is saying. I personally don't pay much attention to it.

Nor does the IPCC do peer review, if you think it does, you have misunderstood what peer review is, sorry.

Sorry the IPCC reviews peer-review material and weeds out that which doesn't agree.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Would you prefer IPCC peer-review?

Let me point out tho that this line of counter-argument you offered is a classic example of disinformation and media manipulation at work.

You have allowed people to misrepresnet to you what the IPCC is and what it's role is, to take several well known IPCC errors as indicitave of the scientific community as a whole, and now you use the term IPCC as a kind of collective slam.

I would wager you haven't actually studied ther IPCC and don't really know that much about it.

You seem clever enough when it comes to other kinds of media and political manipulation. I'm going to be inviting you to take a look at how your point of view regarding global warming theory may have been manipulated by the media as well.

To establish a general rule - don't trust the media, check the information yourself.

[Overload]

Originally Posted by Bill8

You should learn to argue better.

Study the subject.

ah there you are ... US media ... US scientists ... US bla ... all try to tell you "billions of tons of co² and trillions of tons of methane have ZERO effect on our climate" ... dream on ...

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Sorry the IPCC reviews peer-review material and weeds out that which doesn't agree.

No, it doesn't.

Now let's see, how do we determine the truth of these two competing claims.

Would you care to offer evidence of the IPCC's peer review function? Perhaps you could show me the IPCC's accredited peer review publication?

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Overload

ah there you are ... US media ... US scientists ... US bla ... all try to tell you "billions of tons of co² and trillions of tons of methane have ZERO effect on our climate" ... dream on ...

That also is not an effective line of argument. Do you want me to explain why?

It's actually ineffective on several levels, it's scientifically improperly formed, and politically it's so easily countered by well known memes that it actually has teh opposite effect than you intend.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Bill8

No, it doesn't.

Now let's see, how do we determine the truth of these two competing claims.

Would you care to offer evidence of the IPCC's peer review function? Perhaps you could show me the IPCC's accredited peer review publication?

Oh, by the way, it;s not impossible that I'm wrong, I'll say that before I recheck my information. As I said, I regard the IPCC as a political body, and don't pay much attention to it, just like I dont pay much attention to Al Gore, have never seen his movie, and don;t pay much attention to polar bear arguments.

[Bill8]

Okay, the wiki has not changed significantly, and no, the IPCC does not do peer review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change

For a minute there I was concerned that they might have started hosting a peer review journal, but no, they haven't.

But, I see now that you did not claim that IPCC does peer review, you claimed that it reviewed peer-reviewed material and edited out that with which it does not agree.

Sorry, I misread.

But, you are the one making the claim, so it now falls upon you to provide supporting evidence. So, can you name some article the IPCC rejected, and give arguments why it shoudl not have been?

However, as I said, the IPCC is a political body, it does not create global warming theory.

Now, what you have done is throw up a red herring, trying to distract from my line of argument by claiming something about the IPCC, which ultimately does not respond to my arguments.

It's technically both a red herring and a straw man. With some adhominem implied on the straw man.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by Overload

yaya ... how come ... when it comes to refusing ... its 99.9% the US folks? is your media THAT limited? really makes me wonder ... even the last goat sheppard in the sahel zone of africa has noticed the climate changes ... and yet the US is def, blind and unwilling to see ... in the end ... every other country will be making big green in GREEN technology while you rot on debts unwilling to CHANGE! ... fuck, MAROCCO is AHEAD of you already! THINK about THAT!

Wow thank god for the USA then. Everyone else is apparently a media slave with no real independent thought and no ability to question.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

Let me point out tho that this line of counter-argument you offered is a classic example of disinformation and media manipulation at work.

You have allowed people to misrepresnet to you what the IPCC is and what it's role is, to take several well known IPCC errors as indicitave of the scientific community as a whole, and now you use the term IPCC as a kind of collective slam.

I would wager you haven't actually studied ther IPCC and don't really know that much about it.

You seem clever enough when it comes to other kinds of media and political manipulation. I'm going to be inviting you to take a look at how your point of view regarding global warming theory may have been manipulated by the media as well.

To establish a general rule - don't trust the media, check the information yourself.

I've spent enough time on the matter to know it's a scam. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one because there's no way you could ever convince me otherwise.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I've spent enough time on the matter to know it's a scam. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one because there's no way you could ever convince me otherwise.

Perhaps you would explain to me how you studied the subject?

I have no interest in modifying your belief system. I don't have much regard for belief in general, thats why I find scientific method so interesting.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

Okay, the wiki has not changed significantly, and no, the IPCC does not do peer review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change

For a minute there I was concerned that they might have started hosting a peer review journal, but no, they haven't.

But, I see now that you did not claim that IPCC does peer review, you claimed that it reviewed peer-reviewed material and edited out that with which it does not agree.

Sorry, I misread.

But, you are the one making the claim, so it now falls upon you to provide supporting evidence. So, can you name some article the IPCC rejected, and give arguments why it shoudl not have been?

However, as I said, the IPCC is a political body, it does not create global warming theory.

Now, what you have done is throw up a red herring, trying to distract from my line of argument by claiming something about the IPCC, which ultimately does not respond to my arguments.

It's technically both a red herring and a straw man. With some adhominem implied on the straw man.

I guess you've fogotten about climategate. Would a senate report do?


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this report, Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works examine key documents and emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). We have concluded:
• The emails were written by the world’s top climate scientists, who work at the most prestigious and influential climate research institutions in the world.

• Many of them were lead authors and coordinating lead authors of UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, meaning that they had been intimately involved in writing and editing the IPCC’s science assessments. They also helped write reports by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).

• The CRU controversy and recent revelations about errors in the IPCC’s most recent science assessment cast serious doubt on the validity of EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The IPCC serves as the primary basis for EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

• Instead of moving forward on greenhouse gas regulation, the Agency should fully address the CRU controversy and the IPCC’s flawed science.

The scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws.

In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.
An independent inquiry conducted by the UK’s Information Commissioner has already concluded that the scientists employed by the University of East Anglia, and who were at the center of the controversy, violated the UK’s Freedom of Information Act.1 Another independent inquiry, headed by Sir Muir Russell, is investigating allegations that the scientists in the CRU scandal manipulated climate change data.2
In our view, the CRU documents and emails reveal, among other things, unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some of the world’s preeminent climate scientists.3

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-12b7df1a0b63


In 2007 the IPCC banned the ICSC from attended the IPCC Climate Change Conference because they had evidence the warming was due to solar activity.. Which it is.

[Bill8]

Presumably you are aware that 5 (ahhh, no, now 6 I think) different investigations of the stolen east anglia emails all concluded that there was no falsification of data or theory or models.

Climategate, as your media has told you to call it, was not what your media told you it was.

Now, lets see, how can I present this information in a way that you can allow yourself to consider it. Is that possible, considering that you have already said that you do not want your convictions changed?

You are aware, are you not, that ALL the investigations conducted have stated that the hacked emails did not contain anything that showed any kind of data manipulation?

I can go into detail, but first lets establish wether or not you know that investigations disproved the media claims of malfeasance.

Including an investigation that came out recently, earlier this year I think, sponsored by the republicans. Did you follow the results of that one?

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by Bill8

Perhaps you would explain to me how you studied the subject?

I have no interest in modifying your belief system. I don't have much regard for belief in general, thats why I find scientific method so interesting.

he read a bunch of stuff from conspiracy theory websites because you know, they have the real truth.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

Presumably you are aware that 5 (ahhh, no, now 6 I think) different investigations of the stolen east anglia emails all concluded that there was no falsification of data or theory or models.

Climategate, as your media has told you to call it, was not what your media told you it was.

Now, lets see, how can I present this information in a way that you can allow yourself to consider it. Is that possible, considering that you have already said that you do not want your convictions changed?

You are aware, are you not, that ALL the investigations conducted have stated that the hacked emails did not contain anything that showed any kind of data manipulation?

I can go into detail, but first lets establish wether or not you know that investigations disproved the media claims of malfeasance.

Including an investigation that came out recently, earlier this year I think, sponsored by the republicans. Did you follow the results of that one?

Most recent? A good read and take

Stringer?s Amendment
Stringer proposed the following final paragraph for the report:

98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU?s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly?s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU?s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.?

Instead, the Committee adopted the following:

98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. Much rests on the accuracy and integrity of climate science. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. It is, however, important to bear in mind the considered view of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, that ?the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal?.132 While we do have some reservations about the way in which UEA operated, the SAP review and the ICCER set out clear and sensible recommendations.In our view it is time to make the changes and improvements recommended and with greater openness and transparency move on.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/24/s...mmittee-again/

[epitome]

Stripping the earth of its resources, filling it with junk and pumping man made toxins into the air is perfectly natural and there will be no consequences. Fuck recycling, Mother Earth deserves to be raped.

[Bill8]

Hmmm, so I dropped the tagline of the report you posted into google, and looked at the first 20 results.

That's odd - they are pretty much all right or left wing blogs - not a single big media link that I can see.

http://www.google.com/search?source=...=Google+Search

40 results - 50 results - almost all blogs, mostly right wing, some left wing. odd.

This seems to be connected somehow to the famous recent Inhofe sponsored investigation - but it's not that investigations report. It's hard to tell exactly what this document you posted is supposed to claim as authority

Lets check google news. Nothing in google news? Odd, but it is dated 2010.

Okay, lets check the real Inhofe sponsored investigation by the Commerce Office of the Inspector General.

http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublicatio..._to_Inhofe.pdf

from

http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/Respons...ken-from-.aspx

Here's what the washington post said about it - just a blog - but you may inspoire me to collect all the info.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...ntists_in.html

Posted at 4:50 PM ET, 02/24/2011
Commerce Dept. report clears U.S. scientists in 'climategate'
By Brian Vastag
An independent review of thousands of emails stolen from climate researchers has found that scientists at the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration did not manipulate data or otherwise engage in wrongdoing.

The report, issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, is at least the fifth report by various bodies in the United States and Britain to clear researchers at the heart of the so-called "Climategate" incident that galvanized vocal skeptics of the science of global warming.

In November 2009, someone stole and distributed thousands of emails from a computer at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. The individual or individuals who stole the emails have not been identified.

The emails contained frank, even hostile, discussions among climate researchers about a handful of opponents who repeatedly questioned the huge body of research that confirms that the Earth has been warming.

The Inspector General's report found that NOAA researchers did not manipulate data, as has been widely claimed by climate change skeptics. The researchers involved also properly adhered to the agency's data review policies, the report concluded.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a constant outspoken critic of climate science, requested the review.

Of the 1,073 email messages looked at, eight warranted detailed examination, the report said.

In one of the messages, Inhofe himself was the target of lampooning. The message contained "a photographic image, titled, 'marooned,' which depicted Senator Inhofe and five other persons -- several as characters from the television program Gilligan's Island -- as stranded on a melting ice cap at the North Pole or floating nearby in the ocean," the report said.

In reponse, the report said, "NOAA management recently took action to address the scientists' conduct." A spokeswoman for NOAA said that the agency would provide no further information on what action was taken.

Inhofe released a statement thanking the Inspector General and highlighting the eight messages singled out for detailed review. In the statement, Inhofe says, "This report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal contract law and engaged in data manipulation."

However, the Inspector General concluded that there was no evidence of any such manipulation.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

Hmmm, so I dropped the tagline of the report you posted into google, and looked at the first 20 results.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ch/496/496.pdf

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Most recent? A good read and take

Stringer?s Amendment
Stringer proposed the following final paragraph for the report:

98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU?s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly?s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU?s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.?

Instead, the Committee adopted the following:

98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. Much rests on the accuracy and integrity of climate science. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. It is, however, important to bear in mind the considered view of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, that ?the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal?.132 While we do have some reservations about the way in which UEA operated, the SAP review and the ICCER set out clear and sensible recommendations.In our view it is time to make the changes and improvements recommended and with greater openness and transparency move on.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/24/s...mmittee-again/

So, your reponse is to offer a clip from a Steve McIntyre page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

One that doesn't seem to be saying what you think it's saying.

What do you think this page is saying?

You do realize don't you that investigative panels are by definition not qualified to "investigate" the science? They are qualified to investogate the ethics, but not the science. The science is investigated by scientists.

(And, all the investigations found no evidence of ethical violations directly involving the CRU datasets, btw. the "ethical" violations they did find all involved minor matters, like passing around a rude cartoon of Sen Inhofe, improperly discussing other scientists data before publication, and possibly a few cases of scientists using funds for purposes they did not reveal in their grant applications.)

Is that what you want, to take science out of the hands of scientists and get some government or academic agency to "declare" the science true or false?

Dude, that's fucking insane. What happens when the politicians change and teh next group comes along and DECLARES the science be some other way?

So, you take a page from an unqualified critic, that says that he thinks taht some other critics amendment complaining that the science wasn't investigated, only the ethics, should have been put in the report rather than what the comittee as a whle decided to publish, and you think this means what exactly?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

So, your reponse is to offer a clip from a Steve McIntyre page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

One that doesn't seem to be saying what you think it's saying.

What do you think this page is saying?

You do realize don't you that investigative panels are by definition not qualified to "investigate" the science? They are qualified to investogate the ethics, but not the science. The science is investigated by scientists.

(And, all the investigations found no evidence of ethical violations directly involving the CRU datasets, btw. the "ethical" violations they did find all involved minor matters, like passing around a rude cartoon of Sen Inhofe, improperly discussing other scientists data before publication, and possibly a few cases of scientists using funds for purposes they did not reveal in their grant applications.)

Is that what you want, to take science out of the hands of scientists and get some government or academic agency to "declare" the science true or false?

Dude, that's fucking insane. What happens when the politicians change and teh next group comes along and DECLARES the science be some other way?

So, you take a page from an unqualified critic, that says that he thinks taht some other critics amendment complaining that the science wasn't investigated, only the ethics, should have been put in the report rather than what the comittee as a whle decided to publish, and you think this means what exactly?

The panels were stacked in the favor of the IPCC/CRU so they obviously aren't going to find anything wrong. That would be like the Fed investigating itself. Or even congress investigating the Fed. Sure they did it but they don't see anything wrong with them handing out $16 trillion because they get paid to keep quiet.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ch/496/496.pdf

yes, I read that report long ago. I dont remember it all. What do you think it says.

You know, posting links is a lazy and timid way to debate, you should at least add some commentary explaining why you think the link is relevant, or perhaps discussing it's provenance.

Anyway, aside from that, what's your point with posting thsi investogation. As I recall, it was the first one published, but I may have my sequence misremembered, I spend more time studying the theory than the investigations.

Am I supposed to go thru teh report and copy and paste the relevant quotes?

Maybe you think I'm intimidated by investogativese and I will be frightened by the thick language of this report? Dude, I read the whole thing when it first came out.

Lets see - okay, I'll do that

Peer review
The conclusions reached by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER)
are in line with our predecessor Committee?s findings that ?the evidence they saw did
not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process and that
academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic
papers?. We stand by this conclusion and are satisfied with the detailed analysis of the
allegations by the ICCER. (Paragraph 77)

The Government notes the Committee?s conclusion that there was no evidence of attempts
to subvert the peer review process, and agrees that academics should not be criticised for
commenting informally on academic papers, noting that constructive criticism and
challenge is fundamental to ensuring a robust scientific approach.

Freedom of Information
We are concerned that the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review did not fully
investigate the serious allegation relating to the deletion of e-mails. We find it
unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from the Vice-Chancellor that
the e-mails still exist. On the basis of the ICO?s announcement made on 7 July 2010, it
is reasonable to conclude that there was a breach of EIR by a failure to provide a
Government response to the Science and Technology Committee?s First Report of Session 2010?12 5
response within 20 working days. On the allegation that e-mails were deleted to
frustrate requests for information, a firm conclusion has proved elusive. UEA have
accepted that there were weaknesses in their system, and in pockets of their culture, for
dealing with requests for information. We are pleased that they are working towards
rectifying this. (Paragraph 89)

The broader confusion about how FoI legislation should be applied to scientific
research must be resolved. The Information Commissioner?s Office has made some
progress, but this should now be pursued as a matter of urgency. The Government
Chief Scientific Adviser will also be looking at this issue. We regard this matter as
sufficiently serious that we want to see it resolved. We hope the Information
Commissioner?s Office will provide clear guidance on the application of FoI to
scientific research by the start of the new academic year in September 2011.

So, I suppose I should give you the cliff notes, and explain to you what they just said.

They said, they found no evidence of attempts to manipulate the science. Thats the first part.

Then they said, but the scientists should have responded to the FOI requests faster. However, they add, there is not a clear policy for handling and paying for responses to FOI requests, and somebody needs to define that policy.

All of thsi is well known and was heavily discussed at the time this report came out. The FOI pat was especially heavily discussed.

Because, you know, Steve McIntyre tried to get people from all over the world to harass the CRU with FOI requests.

I'd love to go into the whole FOI thing with you - shall we?

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

yes, I read that report long ago. I dont remember it all. What do you think it says.

You know, posting links is a lazy and timid way to debate, you should at least add some commentary explaining why you think the link is relevant, or perhaps discussing it's provenance.

Anyway, aside from that, what's your point with posting thsi investogation. As I recall, it was the first one published, but I may have my sequence misremembered, I spend more time studying the theory than the investigations.

Am I supposed to go thru teh report and copy and paste the relevant quotes?

Maybe you think I'm intimidated by investogativese and I will be frightened by the thick language of this report? Dude, I read the whole thing when it first came out.

Lets see - okay, I'll do that



So, I suppose I should give you the cliff notes, and explain to you what they just said.

They said, they found no evidence of attempts to manipulate the science. Thats the first part.

Then they said, but the scientists should have responded to the FOI requests faster. However, they add, there is not a clear policy for handling and paying for responses to FOI requests, and somebody needs to define that policy.

All of thsi is well known and was heavily discussed at the time this report came out. The FOI pat was especially heavily discussed.

Because, you know, Steve McIntyre tried to get people from all over the world to harass the CRU with FOI requests.

I'd love to go into the whole FOI thing with you - shall we?

The link refers to post #26 where the panel changed Stringer’s Amendment. Showing the panel was biased.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

The panels were stacked in the favor of the IPCC/CRU so they obviously aren't going to find anything wrong. That would be like the Fed investigating itself. Or even congress investigating the Fed. Sure they did it but they don't see anything wrong with them handing out $16 trillion because they get paid to keep quiet.

So, you are saying that 4 different academic and government investigations conducted in four different parts of the world were fixed by the IPCC?

What about Inhofe's investigation by the Commerce Inspector General - you fingure that Commerce was infltrated by IPCC spies as well?

Man, this is insanity - how do you imagine the IPCC exerts that type of power?

Thats just as nuts as saying that the government hid thermite and bombs in the world trade center and set it off after faking airliner hijackings.

Some of your political observations are astute but friend you have allowed the media to hoodwink you when it comes to things like this. You need to expand your sources of information.

I dont want you to change your thoughts about global warming - but please think about examining your sources more critically. At least criticize it with the best quality of information.

[marketsmart]

global warming is real...

i have to put baby powder on my nuts to keep them from drowning in sweat...





.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

So, you are saying that 4 different academic and government investigations conducted in four different parts of the world were fixed by the IPCC?

What about Inhofe's investigation by the Commerce Inspector General - you fingure that Commerce was infltrated by IPCC spies as well?

Man, this is insanity - how do you imagine the IPCC exerts that type of power?

Thats just as nuts as saying that the government hid thermite and bombs in the world trade center and set it off after faking airliner hijackings.

Some of your political observations are astute but friend you have allowed the media to hoodwink you when it comes to things like this. You need to expand your sources of information.

I dont want you to change your thoughts about global warming - but please think about examining your sources more critically. At least criticize it with the best quality of information.

I think that when you have any government panel investigating whether or not something that would generate tax revenue was a scam we won't be getting any truthful answer out of them.

[Rochard]

No matter what data you look over or what period of time it covers, it's either gonna get colder or hotter. Take your pick.

[sperbonzo]

Now THIS is A fun thread




.

[SleazyDream]

it's hot here

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

The link refers to post #26 where the panel changed Stringer?s Amendment. Showing the panel was biased.

So, because a canadian mining engineer says that the government SHOULD have investigated and declared the "science" true or false, something that has terrifying orwellian implications about the desire to have politics define what is scientifically true and what isn't, you want to say all the rest of teh investigation is biased?

You WANT politicians to tell us what is allowed scientificially?

Dide, that is fucking crazy.

man, HUNDREDS of people have said to Steve McIntyre, "become a climate scientist, get yourself published in the peer review journals, and we will be happy to take your critiques into consideration.".

But what McIntyre does is conduct a kind of scientific Denial of Services attack, asking peopel from around the world to file FOI requests on the CRU. That's not science, thats politics - hell, thats not politics, thats just a nuisance crime.

And you know, all the data that they wanted was just published recently - it's on the net now, where anyone can download it and run it thru filters.

Because that's how science works - it's slower than politics, it's slower than the media, because it has a method, and that method asn't about popular opinion or fads or political firestorms, it's about sharing the measurements in a way that allows peer review by qualified peers.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

So, because a canadian mining engineer says that the government SHOULD have investigated and declared the "science" true or false, something that has terrifying orwellian implications about the desire to have politics define what is scientifically true and what isn't, you want to say all the rest of teh investigation is biased?

You WANT politicians to tell us what is allowed scientificially?

Dide, that is fucking crazy.

man, HUNDREDS of people have said to Steve McIntyre, "become a climate scientist, get yourself published in the peer review journals, and we will be happy to take your critiques into consideration.".

But what McIntyre does is conduct a kind of scientific Denial of Services attack, asking peopel from around the world to file FOI requests on the CRU. That's not science, thats politics - hell, thats not politics, thats just a nuisance crime.

And you know, all the data that they wanted was just published recently - it's on the net now, where anyone can download it and run it thru filters.

Because that's how science works - it's slower than politics, it's slower than the media, because it has a method, and that method asn't about popular opinion or fads or political firestorms, it's about sharing the measurements in a way that allows peer review by qualified peers.

No I don't trust the politicians to give a straight answer because tax revenues are involved.

Climate change is real. It's changed since the beginning of the Earth. Iceland use to be green. Greenland use to be ice. The US use to almost be covered in ice. Glaciers carved the Grand Canyon...

Man made global warming is a scam for taxes.

What is man made climate change? Cloud seeding... AKA chemtrails.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

I think that when you have any government panel investigating whether or not something that would generate tax revenue was a scam we won't be getting any truthful answer out of them.

And thats a good reason to be suspicious, and, for instance, not to pay any attention to things like Al Gore or polar bear articles.

But, suspicion has to be balanced by rational assessment, or it becomes a liability.

Listen, you probably think I'm some kind of treehugger, but I am extremely suspicious myself.

All information we get in this society is suspect, and ANYTHING you see on the corporate media must be doubted. But it is possible for an ordinary person to collect enough information from enough of a variety of sources to make rational judgements about the quality of some of that information.

And dude, you should be more suspicious of some if the information you are processing.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

And thats a good reason to be suspicious, and, for instance, not to pay any attention to things like Al Gore or polar bear articles.

But, suspicion has to be balanced by rational assessment, or it becomes a liability.

Listen, you probably think I'm some kind of treehugger, but I am extremely suspicious myself.

All information we get in this society is suspect, and ANYTHING you see on the corporate media must be doubted. But it is possible for an ordinary person to collect enough information from enough of a variety of sources to make rational judgements about the quality of some of that information.

And dude, you should be more suspicious of some if the information you are processing.

My rational assessment is that the big bright thing in the sky is the cause.

[MetaMan]

Did people really believe it was real? Humans have no fucking clue about weather patterns. O wait there is a couple idiots in this thread.

[Anthony]

Weathermen can't predict the weather tomorrow, but out of the blue, now everyone knows what's it's going to be like 100 years from now.

Follow the money, people. We breathe oxygen, and give off Co2. Kill all humans.

Over the weekend I read this book called "The Forever War" which was written in the 70's. Funny how it so closely mimics the real world today.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Over the weekend I read this book called "The Forever War" which was written in the 70's. Funny how it so closely mimics the real world today.

Not a bad book.

Too bad we won't be inventing star travel in any forseeable future, it made for wonderful fiction.

So, how did you think it mimiced our times?

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

My rational assessment is that the big bright thing in the sky is the cause.

Well, as you bring up cases and specifics, I'll enjoy debating them.

I don't spend all that much time thinking about how to argue this topic, but it's probably worth my while to build up my toolbox of arguments and counterarguments.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

Well, as you bring up cases and specifics, I'll enjoy debating them.

I don't spend all that much time thinking about how to argue this topic, but it's probably worth my while to build up my toolbox of arguments and counterarguments.

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

[marlboroack]

It's true to some degree, but Earth can always fight back and evolve.

[PornStarToys]

fifffttyyy