How can scientific theory be proven true if it can't be reproduced ?

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.


Climate change data dumped - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)

And even more basic ;how can you defend the creation of international policy that costs $$$ multi-trillions with economic,social and environmental impacts based on a theory that may very well be a fabrication ? Whether they are willing to admit it or not; the politicians converging on Copenhagen are playing with other peoples money ,livelhood and lives .


The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action
Precautionary principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle)

Many politicians have invoked the "precautionary principle" to advocate government action on climate change . However , the precautionary principle can also be invoked against the dangers of government action. The precautionary principle should dictate they act cautiously especially now that their conclusions are based on tainted evidence.

Or are you one of those who argue "the science is settled ......we don't need no stinkin data" ?

Whatever. That's the reaction by the IPCC chief (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails).


"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

Mind you this is the same world body that's given us oil for food, child sex slaves in West Africa, and utter incompetence on Iran saying "trust us." Pachauri naturally doesn't believe an inquiry into the emails will accomplish anything but firmly believes a criminal inquiry into the release of the emails is needed.

TPM editors made a typical but ironic attack (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/why_do_you_believe_what_you_do.php#more) on conservatives/Republicans in the wake of Climategate:


Do our beliefs form the basis of our partisan and ideological affiliations? Or is it vice versa?

There's been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing. I think that trend is fairly classed under the general heading of Republican/conservative hostility to science.

The evidence is growing that AGW "science" has been corrupted, so let's attack skeptics as being hostile to science. Let's review:

CRU director Phil Jones uses a "nature trick" to "hide the decline (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt)" in a paper he was submitting for publication.

CRU director Phil Jones won't come out and say the world is cooling (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt) because "the scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms."

CRU director Phil Jones says if contrarians find out the UK has an FOI act he'd rather delete the file (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt) rather than turn them over.

CRU director Phil Jones says the death of skeptic John Daly was "cheering news (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=393&filename=1075403821.txt)."

Another CRU scientist threatens to "beat the crap out of (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1045&filename=1255100876.txt)" another skeptic next time he sees him.

CRU Director Phil Jones says he won't send papers to the Royal Meteorological Society "if the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=967&filename=1237496573.txt)."

Scientist Tom Wigley threatens to kneecap a journal editor (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt) if he finds out he's a skeptic.

In 1999 the World Wildlife Fund suggest to CRU they would like to "see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=127&filename=933255789.txt)."

Now we find that CRU, after agreeing to release the data under FOI, tossed the data so it can't be reviewed anyway. As David Archibald said (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/peer-review-locks-gate), "the warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and the journals’ boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors. As a last line of defence, they were going to change the definition of what peer review meant."

And I'm hostile to science?

P.S. A BBC expert says he had the emails 6 weeks ago (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html). I sent a letter to our paper after reading 3 articles on global warming on Thursday but still no mention of Climategate. No response and still no mention of the fraud as of today.

The Obama administration is apparently firmly in the camp of "the science is settled ......we don't need no stinkin data" An exchange at the WH press briefing yesterday:


Q Are you aware of a list, the published list of 31,000 scientists who oppose this idea of global warming?

MR. GIBBS: I don't doubt that there --

Q And 6,000 of them are PhDs.

MR. GIBBS: I don't doubt that there's such a list, Lester. I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.

Like 6,000 PhDs and 25,000 other scientists that disagree and can't review the data because it's been dumped?

It's spreading, too. SUNY Albany is part of the scam according to Douglas Keenan (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-fraud-is-everywhere-suny-albany-and-queens-university-belfast-join-climategate-pjm-exclusive/):


Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important.

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York — where the research discussed in my paper was conducted — carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed — contrary to the university's policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report's release.

But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque.

As is Queens University Belfast:


Suppose that during the Medieval Warm Period, Earth was 1°C warmer than today. That would imply that the tipping point is more than 1°C higher than today's temperature. For Earth's temperature to increase 1°C might take roughly a century (at the rate of increase believed to be currently underway). So we would not have to be concerned about an imminent disruption of the climate system.

Finding out how warm the Medieval Warm Period is thus of enormous importance for the study of global warming.

It turns out that global (or at least hemispheric) temperatures are reflected by the climate in western Ireland (for a short explanation of that, see my site). Trees grow in western Ireland, of course, and each year those trees grow a ring. Thick rings indicate climate conditions that were good for the trees; thin rings indicate the opposite. If many trees in western Ireland had thick rings in some particular years, then climatic conditions in those years were presumably good. Tree rings have been used in this way to learn about the climate centuries ago.

Queen's University Belfast has data on tree rings that goes back millennia — and in particular, to the Medieval Warm Period. QUB researchers have not analyzed the data, because they lack the expertise to do so.

They also refuse to release the data. The story is scandalous.

I have been trying to obtain the data via the UK Freedom of Information Act since April 2007.

Even The Atlantic surprisingly has some harsh words (http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php) over Climategate:


In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu. It goes to the core of that process.

One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson's study raised, and it was also emphasised in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre's campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.

I'm also surprised by the IPCC's response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers".

What's that, the sound of crickets still chirping?

P.S. Some interesting insight on the players involved can be found here (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17364).

Update: The Goracle is of course only doing his part for the climate out of the goodness of his heart. That's why for just 5,999 Krones, or about $1,213, you can shake his hand in Copenhagen (http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/composite-4994.htm).

It doesn't really matter what the "little people" think or want anymore. It's what BIG government wants and will GET by hook or by crook. They can manipulate the data all they want to make it say whatever they want. All I know is that the climate is getting cooler, not warmer.

Did you catch this, tom? Jon Stewart on Climategate:

FgPUpIBWGp8

Barbara Boxer has re-branded this scandal (http://www.breitbart.tv/sen-boxer-you-call-it-climategate-i-call-it-e-mail-theft-gate/), "You call it ClimateGate, I call it Email-Theft-Gate."

Jim Treacher replies (http://twitter.com/JTlol/status/6148899133), "Climategate is a story about computer hacking in much the same way Watergate was a story about parking garages."

Have been busy . Will watch the Jon Stewart thing tonight. The Atlantic despite it's occasional lean to the left (and providing blog space to pseudo-conservative Andrew Sullivan),is still my favorite magazine .

... or Watergate was a 3rd rate break in(Ron Ziegler).

YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk)

Update: The Goracle is of course only doing his part for the climate out of the goodness of his heart. That's why for just 5,999 Krones, or about $1,213, you can shake his hand in Copenhagen (http://www.visitcopenhagen.com/composite-4994.htm).

Cancel that (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/):


Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nations' Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week.

As described in The Washington Times' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."

Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Mr. Gore's program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.

"We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. . . . We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation," said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company.

The ClimateDepot,com, an online news aggregator that tracks global-warming news reports, referred to the situation as "Nopenhagen," and evidence that popular momentum for the Copenhagen conference "is fading."

There are a few floor shows taking place stateside as well.

Pajamas Media founder Roger L. Simon and independent filmmaker Lionel Chetwynd -- both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Oscar nominees -- have called on the academy to rescind Mr. Gore's Oscars in light of the Climategate revelations.

"In the history of the academy, not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. I think they should rescind this one," Mr. Simon said Thursday.

News that British and American scientists had manipulated global warming statistics to suit their agenda was made public two weeks ago after their personal e-mails were posted on the Internet.

The film version of Mr. Gore's book "An Inconvenient Truth" won two Oscars in 2007 -- for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.

Damn right, rescind his Oscar AND his Nobel... and take the IPCC's Nobel as well. This is a golden opportunity for Obama by the way, he could be a stand-up guy and do as I suggested earlier and show us that transparency, say no to this Copenhagen nonsense and perhaps somewhere along the way he might earn that Nobel he won for doing the right thing.

YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk)

Very good Tom right on!

For the fourteenth straight day, the three broadcast networks have failed to report on the great and growing ClimateGate scandal on their weekday morning or evening news programs.
Day Fourteen and Counting (http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx)

Hi Tom,

I can see where you are coming from and I agree with most of your posts.
Watergate didn't implicate every politician in America or the rest of the world.
ClimateGate in a similar way doesn't implicate every climate scientist in America or the rest of the world.

Given this it is probably a case of not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is despite the fact that the baby in this case is rather suspect.

I guess that is just pragmatism.

And amazingly tom, that's in spite of the fact that it's been a subject of discussion in Congress and the feckless head of the IPCC actually said we need an investigation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394483.stm). Of course we know how that would turn out.

And amazingly tom, that's in spite of the fact that it's been a subject of discussion in Congress and the feckless head of the IPCC actually said we need an investigation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394483.stm). Of course we know how that would turn out.

Yes indeedy, the first delaying tactic "let's have an inquiry"

Hey Tom here's another one, a simple error, a deliberate mistake or are climate scientists just dyslexic as well as myoptic?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

Watergate didn't implicate every politician in America or the rest of the world.
ClimateGate in a similar way doesn't implicate every climate scientist in America or the rest of the world.


Indeed ,in fact most American politicians seeing the corruption ,quickly distanced themselves from the Nixon Administration. In fact they took steps to drum Nixon out of office ,and many of those involved served jail time . Congress took all types of measures to try to ensure it did not happen gain.

Tell me ,how many of the climatologists and other scientists in America have even publicly condemned any of this fraud yet ? You would think they would be rushing for the exists and throwing the frauds under the bus as quickly as they can .I thought that is what peer review was about.

Tell me ,how many of the climatologists and other scientists in America have even publically condemned any of this fraud yet ? You would think they would be rushing for the exists and throwing the frauds under the bus as quickly as they can .I thought that is what peer review was about.

Hi Tom,

Yes, that is a very good point. I am not sure why that is. Is it a case of a scientists not wanting to publicly criticize other scientists?
Professionals sticking together through thick and thin.

In politics loyalty only goes so far.Perhaps some peer reviewers are privately gloating amongst themselves. Others are perhaps very angry, but restricting their anger within the profession.

I am not sure, but I would like to be a fly on the wall.

Hey Tom here's another one, a simple error, a deliberate mistake or are climate scientists just dyslexic as well as myoptic?
BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm)

Paraclete makes a good point. Another possibility is that when someone saw the data 2350 A.D they could have thought to themselves. This is an error he/she probably should have written 2035 A.D. "I'll fix it for them."

As far as such things as temperatures and dates are concerned, given enough steps in the reading, transmitting and recoding and 'the human factor,' errors will occur.

The more cumbersome the process the more likely errors accumulating. This would be especially true during the pre-computer age.

Given this I think a case could be put forward to say that we really don't know if the earth is heating or cooling.

Could be a thesis in there for someone.

Hello again, tom:

Yawwwwwn... Tis much ado about nothing, as I suspected..

Here's what the NY Times has to say:
--------------------------

"The theft of thousands of private e-mail messages and files from computer servers at a leading British climate research center has been a political windfall for skeptics who claim the documents prove that mainstream scientists have conspired to overstate the case for human influence on climate change.They are using the e-mail to blast the Obama administration’s climate policies. And they clearly hope that the e-mail will undermine negotiations for a new climate change treaty that begin in Copenhagen this week.

No one should be misled by all the noise. The e-mail messages represent years’ worth of exchanges among prominent American and British climatologists. Some are mean-spirited, others intemperate. But they don’t change the underlying scientific facts about climate change.

One describes climate skeptics as “idiots,” another describes papers written by climate contrarians as “garbage” and “fraud.” Still another suggests that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose 2007 report concluded that humans were the dominant force behind global warming, should pay no attention to contrarian opinions.

Another quotes an exasperated Phil Jones — director of the climate center at the University of East Anglia, from which the e-mail was stolen — as expressing the hope that climate change would occur “regardless of the consequences” so “the science could be proved right.”

However, most of the e-mail messages — judging by those that have seen the light of day — appear to deal with the painstaking and difficult task of reconstructing historical temperatures, and the problems scientists encounter along the way. Despite what the skeptics say, they demonstrate just how rigorously scientists have worked to figure out whether global warming is real and the true role that human activities play... "
--------------------------

I tend to agree.

excon

Given this I think a case could be put forward to say that we really don't know if the earth is heating or cooling.

Could be a thesis in there for someone.

I think that research and the case has already been well made

YouTube - Climate Change - has it been cancelled? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU)

Excon ,it doesn't surprise me at all that there is some stonewalling and circling of the wagons going on ;or that the NY slimes is the mouthpiece for it .

The emails reveal that the lead scientists from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Britain ,who compiled the data for the UN, chose the reseach that they put into UN reports very selectively predetermined results that supported their hypothesis. It also reveals that there was a concerted effort to purge inconvenient data. The lead scientist Phil Jones (who has resigned over the scandal) emailed that certain data should be destroyed ;and in fact much of the data was. CRU scientists were asked to release their raw temperature data so the scientific community could verify their “global warming” conclusions. The CRU response? They announced that ALL their raw temperature data was “lost” when they switched offices.
The dog ate it!!

The emails reveal partisans engaged in a political rather than a scientific enterprise. The data has been corrupted so the conclusion is AT BEST suspect.

But continue to give support to the modern day Torquemadas . I always knew your faith in the modern day shamans was cult like.There was a time when you would've taken the lead when issues of destroyed documents, fraud, conspiracy and the misuse of millions of government dollars was revealed . But OK ;pay no attention to those facts behind the curtain .

The emails reveal partisans engaged in a political rather than a scientific enterprise. The data has been corrupted so the conclusion is AT BEST suspect. Hello again, tom:

While I don't doubt there are SOME partisans amongst the scientists out there, you are asking me to deny a consensus that has been reached among the bulk of the scientific body, and I'm just not going to do that.

If you folks were known for your support for science, but you discovered this ONE anomaly, you'd have my ear... But, we've had discussions over the validity of ID before. We might as well have been discussing the validity of Santa Clause as far as I'm concerned.. Therefore you have NO credibility with me over science issues..

Sorry Righty's.

excon

Again ;I am a supporter of the theory of evolution. For the record, my only position on ID has been that it shows some flaws in the theory of evolution.But since it offers no scientific alternative ,it should not be taught as science. But it deserves a hearing in schools.

So your non sequitur doesn't really apply. I am and have been a big supporter of legitimate science. But it is increasingly clear that AGW is NOt legitimate science . It is this era's Piltdown man.
Piltdown Man (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/piltdown.html)

The fraud meant to supply the missing link did not disprove evolution .But it exposed the lengths some scientist will go to support their predetermined postions . Or as a more recent example;I could cite the frauds in cloning that were recently exposed.
Hwang Woo-Suk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk)

Do you think fraudulent behavior supports legitimate science ? I don't .

While I don't doubt there are SOME partisans amongst the scientists out there, you are asking me to deny a consensus that has been reached among the bulk of the scientific body, and I'm just not going to do that.

Since I know you don't read what we post I can only conclude you're judgment is based on not knowing the facts in evidence.


If you folks were known for your support for science, but you discovered this ONE anomaly, you'd have my ear... But, we've had discussions over the validity of ID before. We might as well have been discussing the validity of Santa Clause as far as I'm concerned.. Therefore you have NO credibility with me over science issues..

In arguing this a tempest in a teapot you're doing exactly what these scientists did, repeating a mantra drawn from predetermined conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and just plain fudging the data. Oh, the irony.

Since I know you don't read what we post I can only conclude you're judgment is based on not knowing the facts in evidence. Morning, Steve:

While I often times don't read the claptrap you post, before I respond, I DO read stuff. I'm not known around here as a guy who isn't informed.

excon

While I often times don't read the claptrap you post, before I respond, I DO read stuff. I'm not known around here as a guy who isn't informed.

Then you must have a dishonest streak because there is no evidence that tom or myself are anti-science.

Read this from George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns):


Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain -- a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- reveals some scientists' willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and the publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer "consensus" and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.

The Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: "Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them." These scientists overstated and censored because they were "goaded" by skepticism?

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

You apparently believe "sustained propagandistic lockstep" and "intellectual corruption" is science. I don't.

You apparently believe "sustained propagandistic lockstep" and "intellectual corruption" is science. I don't.Hello again, Steve:

I'm happy to discuss real issues... But, often times Steve, you find whackos on the left, reprint what they wrote, and then make broad conclusions about it. I don't.

That isn't to say that there AREN'T mean spirited, lying, BAD, PETTY scientists, who will do ANYTHING to promote themselves rather than their science... That, however, does NOT debunk the established science. You just don't like that it IS established.

I say again; anybody who thinks ID should be taught alongside evolution in our schools, doesn't have a clear understanding of science, and their beliefs on the subject are not to be taken seriously.

excon

Again you distort my position since I have never said that ID represents a scientific point of view . Your attempt to link my position on ID with my position about AGW is yet another example of your desperation.

The bigger problem is not that evolution is a fact (as much as any scientific theory is fact ) ;it's that Darwinism has been used to support non-scientific social theories including among others eugenics,and racism.

ID should not be taught in science class . But it should be taught in classes dealing with philosophy. As a free thinker I'm amazed at your fear of the teaching of subject matters you philosophically oppose.

By the way ;I can't take seriously anyone who supports the Mann hockey stick graph in light of all the evidence of manipulation and fraud associated with it. It amazes me that when we ask AGW proponents for SCIENTIFIC proof of their lies they act like the creationists . They even have their bible in the IPCC reports.

It amazes me that when we ask AGW proponents for SCIENTIFIC proof of their lies they act like the creationists Hello again, tom:

Birthers, anyone??

The SCIENTIFIC proof lies in the overwhelming totality of evidence, that you refuse to believe. There ain't nothing that can be said about that.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Please don't confuse my support for the science with my support for "the great climate wealth transfer ". Frankly, I know nothing about the pending solutions, but I have no doubt that our cash window is open once again, and that nations are lining up.

But, to deny the problem because you don't like the solution isn't the way to go.

excon

I do deny the problem because the facts don't support it. The facts that the proponents use have been manipulated ;and it doesn't jive with the historic data... unless of course the folks in the middle ages used SUVs.

But, to deny the problem because you don't like the solution isn't the way to go.

Ex, you're just full of irony this morning, complaining about us denying a problem while you're denying a problem. When scientists intentionally conceal a "blip" to "hide the decline" in temperatures and destroy the raw data, how can you be so sure there is a problem? You can't. When scientists, the government and the media are controlling the message, how can you be so sure there's a problem? You cant.

Here's a brand new email (http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/climate-scientist-to-revkin-we-can-lo-longer-trust-you-to-carry-water-for-us.php) - not from the CRU emails - from a scientist threatening to cut off a reporter (at the NY Times of all places) for not carrying the water for them:


Andy:
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included. [Emphasis added.]
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
Michael

Why would the scientific community want to cut off certain media? What are they afraid of? You don't ask those questions?

But I know, you can always tell us it's not a good thing to throw our trash into the air again. We agree, so you can drop that and the allegation that we have no credibility when it comes to science.

Hello again, tom:

So, we're back to square one.

Like you, I'm not a climatologist. I don't know whether throwing our trash into the air causes problems in our atmosphere or not, but I'd guess that it does. I don't think I have to be a climatologist to conclude that. In fact, I can look around in my OWN environment and SEE the effects of what ignoring our trash does.

So, even though I'm not a scientist, it takes no great leap of faith for me to believe that global warming is ONE of downsides of abusing our air. Specially, when MOST of the scientists in the world AGREE with me.

You, not so much.

But, whether it causes warming or not, I KNOW it does something bad, so we should stop throwing our trash into the air no matter what. No?

Plus, as an added benefit of DOING something, the jillions we spend for our oil NOW goes directly into the pockets of our enemy's. For THAT reason, and that reason alone, wouldn't it be a good idea to find another source of energy?? Yes, I'm trying to appeal to the rightwinged, war guy, tom.

excon

ex, you're just full of irony this morning, complaining about us denying a problem while you're denying a problem. When scientists intentionally conceal a "blip" to "hide the decline" Hello again, Steve:

I don't know if you got before, but let me repeat it for you again. I don't like cheaters. Cheaters ARE a problem. I don't deny that.

What I deny, is that THESE particular cheaters were good enough to alter the overwhelming totality of evidence supporting the theory of man made global warming.

It would be like ME telling YOU that the police forces aren't effective because SOME cops abuse their positions. It's ridiculous on its face, as are your assertions.

excon

Like you, I'm not a climatologist. I dunno whether throwing our trash into the air causes problems in our atmosphere or not, but I'd guess that it does. I don't think I have to be a climatologist to conclude that. In fact, I can look around in my OWN environment and SEE the effects of what ignoring our trash does.

That could not have been any more on cue. You've really gotten predictable, ex. I guess you didn't read my last post...

ex, this goes beyond the emails. Scientists have been going through the code (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574578012533089846.html?m od=rss_opinion_main) obtained as well and it shows the same thing, more manipulation of the data:


Blogging scientists have been busy reviewing the 15,000 lines of code by programmers that were included in the "Documents" folder of the leaked materials. The latest twist is hidden notations in the data from programmers that indicate where they had manipulated results. The programmers expressed frustration when the numbers didn't fit the case for global warming.

Comments in the code include "These will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures," referring to an effort to suppress data showing that the Middle Ages were warmer than today. Comments inside the code also described an "adjustment" as follows: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!" Another notation indicated when a "fudge factor" had been added.

"Artificially adjusted?" A "VERY ARTIFICIAL correction?" "Fudge factor?" What part of fraudulent 'science' don't you get?

CRU argues that the other datasets are independent of theirs and support their research. Guess what, the other data sets are dependent on CRU data:


There are three other data sets on historic temperatures, but blogging scientists have pointed out that they aren't completely independent of the now-dubious East Anglia assertions. Atmospheric data from satellites, for example, rely on the East Anglia surface data to calibrate their measurements.

I remind you that this data has been tossed and what they have now is their "value added (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)" data. "Value added" means "very artificial" corrections that have had the " corrections that have had the " applied.

And guess what, we passed square on years ago:


In addition to blogs, skeptics of global warming have used "crowdsourcing" to improve on the science supposedly done by professionals. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who was surprised by how local conditions affect the reliability of the 1,200 U.S. weather stations. Along with more than 600 volunteers, he found that almost all the stations violate the government's standards by being too close to heating vents or surrounded by asphalt.

I posted on this years ago with pictures of some of the offending weather stations. I can't imagine how one can get an accurate temperature reading from a station posted next to a heating vent in winter, can you?

I also posted on the intimidation factor... almost 3 years ago (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/climate-change-crisis-clearing-up-117690.html#post553973).


EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic

During today's hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

I posted on the "fudge factor" over two years ago (on page 2 of they thread, you'll have to find it as AMHD is having an issue with linking to individual posts).


Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever
Marc Sheppard

1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

Sure, had you checked NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website just days ago, you would have thought so, but not today. You see, thanks to the efforts of Steve McIntyre over at http://www.climateaudit.org/, the Surface Air Temperature Anomaly charts for those and many other years have been revised - predominately down.

Why?

It's a wild and technical story of compromised weather stations and hack computer algorithms (including, get this - a latent Y2K bug) and those wishing to read the fascinating details should follow ALL of the links I've provided. But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved the error of the calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 plus US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations feeding GISS, but also the cascading effect of that error on past data.

You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:


"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station. Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many layers of adjustments."

Both the CRU emails and now the code confirm what we've been saying all along.

I dunno whether throwing our trash into the air causes problems in our atmosphere or not, but I'd guess that it does. excon

The only trouble I have with that point is that the "garbage" these people are talking about is carbon dioxide, which is a natural component of the air. I will not stop breathing, but I'll be happy to get a grant for killing termites (the third largest source of CO2).

The only trouble I have with that point is that the "garbage" these people are talking about is carbon dioxide, which is a natural component of the air. I will not stop breathing, but I'll be happy to get a grant for killing termites (the third largest source of CO2).

Funny you should mention that, the Obama administration's EPA has just has declared air to be a hazard to our health (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_epa_climate;_ylt=Au.zF0wVWFdgkb2UbyGT2Pes0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTNlcjVhMDZlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjA3L3VzX2 VwYV9jbGltYXRlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRw b3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbG sDZXBhZ3JlZW5ob3Vz).

Now Obama can bypass Congress and dictate to businesses regardless of what they do with cap-and tax. And he will.

Just on that issue.

Didn't your Supreme Court rule a few year ago that green house gases were a pollutant?

Yes they did in Massachusetts v. EPA. The unelected ,appointed for life ,black robed oligarchs made a 5-4 decision that compels the EPA to take action to curb Co2 emissions in new cars ;SUVs and trucks... and opened the door for more intrusive regulatory action by the EPA.

Now get this ; in their decision they instructed the EPA to make a decision relying solely on global warming science . At the time they were unaware of how fraudulent the science was.

This decision today gives the President something in his pocket to crow about when he goes to Copenhagen . And as Steve said ;It also is a not so veiled threat by the administration to Congress, to move the Cap and Trade bill through the Senate, or they will take unilateral action.

Does "three strikes" count for flatulence? Methane's a greenhouse gas, too.

Cats ;who knows ?The one thing permanent in government is the bureaucracy .The idiocy at Federal Agencies transfers from administration to administration.

People keep talking about the 2,000 page health care legislation being proposed... It is nothing compared to the volumes of pages generated when these administrators transfer signed legislation into enforcement code.

This is the same EPA that claimed there were no toxic fumes endangering rescue workers at "ground zero" after 9-11.

I have no doubt buried in the Federal Code is agricultural methane emission regulations.

Didn't read all the skeptic ramble as it's a no brainer. Scientific proof of climate change occurring at an alarming rate is irrefutable. To argue against the need for urgent action is utterly irresponsible.

Lateline - 24/11/2009: New report to confirm climate change trends (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2752509.htm)

Climate Change: An Issue for National Security (Australia 2010) | Security News - SourceSecurity.com (http://www.sourcesecurity.com/news/articles/4078.html)

Scientific proof of climate change occurring at an alarming rate is irrefutable. To argue against the need for urgent action is utterly irresponsible.


"call me irresponsible - call me unreliable
Throw in undependable too"

My Bumper sticker
CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS is selling like hotcakes.

Perhaps you should read the skeptic ramble as it doesn't dispute climate change . It disputes AGW and the manipulation of the data the scientists used to support their conclusion.

We have had a 10 year cooling trend .
Global Cooling is Here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783)

So the scientists most responsible for the IPCC findings first tried to suppress that inconvenient truth .Then they just changed the meme from Global Warming to climate change and continued to push for economy wrecking decisions by policy makers who are bound to a course of action based on fraudulent scientific consensus.

Look; the fools in Copenhagen will pontificate for 2 weeks and get nothing done. China and India will not sign on to any agreement and the Europeans are notorious cheaters when it came to Kyoto goals. Their own hyopcritical carbon footprint in the 2 week session will be larger than many 3rd world nations.( 1,200 limousines and 140 private jets producing 880 pounds of CO2 per attendee .)

didn't read all the skeptic ramble as it's a no brainer. Scientific proof of climate change occuring at an alarming rate is irrefutable. To argue against the need for urgent action is utterly irresponsible.

Lateline - 24/11/2009: New report to confirm climate change trends (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2752509.htm)

Climate Change: An Issue for National Security (Australia 2010) | Security News - SourceSecurity.com (http://www.sourcesecurity.com/news/articles/4078.html)

Cannot dispute that climate change is happening, ie; glacial melt, withdrawing of polar ice but like so many, and unlike that dizzy dame looking after the Copenhagen conference, I am unconviced there is a close correlation between CO2 emissions and what we observe and even less convinced we have the will and the ability to reverse the emissions or that we should be attempting to.

Cannot dispute that climate change is happening, ie; glacial melt, withdrawing of polar ice but like so many, and unlike that dizzy dame looking after the Copenhagen conference, I am unconviced there is a close correlation between CO2 emissions and what we observe and even less convinced we have the will and the ability to reverse the emissions or that we should be attempting to.

The funny thing, Clete, is using their math to calculate the remedies they advocate. By their math, everything the whole planet does to reduce emissions will decrease the global teperature one degree Celsius every 129 years.

The funny thing, Clete, is using their math to calculate the remedies they advocate. By their math, everything the whole planet does to reduce emissions will decrease the global temperature one degree Celcius every 129 years.

The US has reached a stage of paranoia on this declaring CO2 a health hazard, Australia is becoming paranoid seeing CO2 as a security threat, but no one has stopped to ask how did we get into this mess? And the answer; population, unbridaled population growth. The problem will not go away as more and more people in developing countries try to catch up with a west obscessed with CO2 abatement. Someone has to tell China and India that for the good of the planet 2 billion people cannot be allowed to develop into CO2 emitters. China has forty mile traffic jams now, imagine what it will be like when another 1 billion people attempt to go home for New Year, a billion cars sitting on expressways pumping out CO2 . Someone has to tell Africa it must forever remain in the dark. We have the ridiculous proposition being put by South Africa that it is a developing nation. Someone has to tell Brazil and Indonesia not to cut down rain forest

Their own hyopcritical carbon footprint in the 2 week session will be larger than many 3rd world nations.( 1,200 limousines and 140 private jets producing 880 pounds of CO2 per attendee .)

Meanwhile, for the rest of us - don't exhale.

Apparently the theme for Copenhagen is "Scare the Children." The opening film, Please Help the World:

NVGGgncVq-4

At work, so cheating with time here a little:

"Now, it could just be me, but I would have thought that the world's most comprehensive assessment and review of climate science by thousands of international experts should probably be the first port of call when searching for facts."

ABC News - Special Events Blog: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/copenhagen/)

at work, so cheating with time here a little:

"Now, it could just be me, but I would have thought that the world's most comprehensive assessment and review of climate science by thousands of international experts should probably be the first port of call when searching for facts."

ABC News - Special Events Blog: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/copenhagen/)

Don't know what you mean about cheating with time what we have here is cheating with facts
It might be a fact that there are health risks associated with temperature rise, it might be a fact that we will get more severe weather events, and that we are likely to get severe impacts on food production but it is not a "fact" that we have the ability to bring things back to what we consider "normal" or to make any significant impact on what is happening. It is wishful thinking led by the Europeans who already have a decided economic disadvantage when compared with the rest of the world.
What we see here is an attempt to limit changes for which we don't actually know the reason to 2 degrees of warming, and we "know" that if the planet warms to that extent we are in unknown territory.

Lets look at the magnitude of what we need to do.
Restore rain forest, this means curtailing soya bean production, and beef production, and consumption, in Brazil and other places which rely on this production. i.e. the US needs to change its diet. It also means phasing out the use of rain forest timbers in furniture production, paper production
Cut vehicle emissions, this means smaller, more efficient vehicles. Just by coincidence the greatest impact will be in the US
Cut emissions from electricity production. Coal fired power stations need to be converted to gas and ultimately phased out. The impact will be felt in the US, Australia and China.
Cut fugitive emissions from the oil industry, so back to the big producing countries and the big users Saudi Arabia, US, Russia
Cut emissions associated with agriculture. This means changing the way we deal with all aspects of agriculture
Cut emissions associated with refrigeration

Has anyone grasped the fact that our modern society cannot be allowed to continue because our approach to everything we do is wrong if we are effectively to deal with the problem as it is presented to us. You wonder why the politicians are dancing around the problem? What ever they do is eventually political suicide and there are very few statesmen out there. All this and we are not even sure if we actually know the cause

Hello clete:

We are the new Eastern Islanders.

excon

Dr James Hansen, a NASA Climate Scientist seems to have grasped some pertinent facts:

Lateline - 07/12/2009: Climate scientist discusses Copenhagen summit (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm)

Hansen is also one of the biggest frauds on the planet
American Thinker Blog: Global Warm-mongering: More Silk from a Pig's Ear (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warmmongering_more_silk.html)

Besides Al Gore (the Goracle) ,Hansen may be the biggest huckster in this scam.
NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore's closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320)

Theon declared "climate models are useless." "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," Theon explained. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy," he added.

Hello clete:

We are the new Eastern Islanders.

excon

Don't you mean Easter Islanders?

I agree we have cut down the trees and our statues face the sea but our demise is near

Some things just need to be spelt out:

12, 2009Conspiracies and the IPCC
A letter writer to a newspaper recently pleaded for guidance on how to get the facts about whether there is human-induced global warming. But the writer added emphatically that he did not want to read reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because he wanted independent and reliable information.

Now, it could just be me, but I would have thought that the world's most comprehensive assessment and review of climate science by thousands of international experts should probably be the first port of call when searching for facts.

And make no mistake about how central the IPCC is to the global warming debate. The IPCC's reports are why ours and other governments around the world are calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; and why everyone will meet in Copenhagen next month.

But some of Australia's leading politicians such as Tony Abbott and Senator Nick Minchin have variously dismissed the IPCC as "alarmist" or fuelling a left-wing conspiracy to "de-industrialise" modern society.

During a visit to NSW's Henty Field Day this year (ABC News - Special Events Blog: Farmers still sceptical about climate change science (http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/2009/09/farmers-still-sceptical-about-climate-change-science.html)) I met numerous farmers' representatives who also harboured a dark suspicion of the IPCC and of climate scientists.

So is the IPCC really that kooky? Have thousands of participating scientists from around the world who've contributed to four IPCC reports since 1990 duped the world with hidden agendas and manipulated science? Have they all got it wrong?

I should point out that the IPCC's conclusions are supported in most countries by most major scientific bodies. In Australia that includes the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, to name a few.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the UN Environment Program (UNEP). It has issued four reports (1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007) each asserting with increasing certainty that the globe is warming (now 100 per cent certain) and that human driven greenhouse gas emissions are largely to blame (now 90 per cent certain). The next report is due 2014.

While it is called a 'panel,' the IPCC is actually one of the most ambitious scientific undertakings in history bringing together hundreds of scientists and other experts who are generally nominated by their governments or by non-government organisations (such as the Australian Academy of Science or the CSIRO). But the IPCC is also policy-neutral. Its job is to present the best science. There is not a single policy recommendation in its reports.

A different group of scientists is picked for each report and it is not just climate scientists - but biologists, physicists, geologists, economists, engineers, health experts and so on. Each report deals with three categories: the physical science, or how climate change works; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, or how to deal with it; and mitigation, or how to minimise it.

Each of these working groups is headed by two scientists, one each from a developed and developing nation, supported by up to 500 other scientists known as lead authors who in turn are supported by up to 2000 further expert reviewers. Together they evaluate thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed research from around the globe.

Here is how Queensland University's Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a world expert on coral reefs and climate change, describes what happened when he contributed a small slice of the 2007 IPCC report:

"The IPCC has one of the most rigorous review processes I have ever experienced. There are various stages of review. The first round involves the working groups picking over the text (hundreds of eyes and qualified expert opinions). If you have been involved in this process, it is a quite an experience which takes months and years - involving a lot of pedantic haggling over detail - but always using the peer-reviewed literature as the base. When this is complete, then the documents are sent to signatory governments for review. Leading scientists from each of the countries pick over the details. And after this, the documents are placed for open comment (on the web). At this point, any government, industry, science group, special interest group, or individual is invited for comment, recommendations, amendments etc. In response, the lead and contributing authors are required to respond to each comment or suggestion in a precise fashion, however correct or off-the-wall they may be. The responses from the specialists are them independently reviewed to ensure that the documents have been amended to include the comment/suggestion/objection or the comment/suggestion/objection refuted scientifically (ie with peer-reviewed literature). Personally, I had to respond to 87 comments on a relatively small contribution to the Australian and NZ chapters within Working Group 2 of the IPCC report in 2007. At the end of the day, I don't think you could have a more rigorous process. The only problem is that it ends up being conservative (e.g. failure of AR4 IPCCC in 2007 to predict the current dramatic decline of Arctic sea ice). That may be its only flaw."

There were more than 30,000 comments from the open public review process for just one of the 2007 working groups - all of them given a written response that is publicly available.

One of the lead authors on the 2001 and 2007 reports, UNSW's Professor Andy Pitman, also worries it is unduly cautious especially because in the final stages all governments, including those with vested interests in fossil fuels like Saudi Arabia, have to approve what has been written "line by line."

Prof Pitman says he and others acknowledge there is much they don't know about how the earth and the climate work; that they have been wrong on some things and that they are eager to test and re-test emerging data. They are by nature a conservative bunch, he says. "All good scientists are sceptics to the core."

But so far nothing has seriously challenged their analysis of an underlying warming trend and its connection to human generated CO2 emissions. If anything, the latest data points to faster and stronger global warming.

"Don't you think ambitious scientists would love to make their name proving global warming wrong? To prove the IPCC is wrong? ," he says. "It would guarantee a Nobel prize!"

"Are we just biased and have we turned the profession into being distorted onto our side?" asks New Zealand's Professor Martin Manning of Victoria University who headed technical support for the 2007 IPCC report. "God, I wish that were the case, because I have grandchildren and practically every day I really, really wish we were wrong."

Which brings us to one of the enduring sources of frustration among IPCC and many other scientists. Just about all the scientists attacking the IPCC, Prof. Pitman says, have never researched nor published any climate science in peer-reviewed journals - and peer review is how science works.

"Climate Science is not about opinions. It is about what is provable and disprovable. There are no scientific publications that provide serious challenge to the IPCC conclusions. Not one. But there are literally thousands that support the conclusions of the IPCC."


When is science valid?
A valuable reference here is a short, sharp guide published by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. It's worth a look.

In part, it provides a checklist to see whether a scientific idea has been validated:

•Has it been published in the peer-reviewed literature in that field of science?
•Have other scientists cited that publication as being valid (as opposed to citing it to show that it is wrong?)
•Have other scientists conducted additional tests that show the idea to be valid?
•Has the idea been built upon to create new understanding, i.e. has the idea become useful?
Posted by Margot O'Neill on November 12, 2009 in Copenhagen Climate Change Conference | Permalink

Dr James Hansen, a NASA Climate Scientist seems to have grasped some pertinent facts:

Lateline - 07/12/2009: Climate scientist discusses Copenhagen summit (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm)

Yes Hansen has a message there and in part I agree with him but I do think you should research Bob Carter also. You see there are many aspects to this debate and no one commentator is entirely right. We must not take action on short term observations

Yes Hansen has a message there and in part I agree with him but I do think you should research Bob Carter also. You see there are many aspects to this debate and no one commentator is entirely right. We must not take action on short term observations

We must take action based on what we already know to be fact. My money rests on the reputation and expertise of people like Will Steffan, Executive Director of the Institute of Climate Change at the Australian National University and the vast store of scientific evidence.

Frangipanis, the quote from Ms. O'neill (is she a PhD?) is fascinating, but she is not describing the Scientific method. She is describing the Scholastic method. Both are useful methods of study, but by using the Scientific method you can debunk invalid conclusions easily with just one criterion: can you predict a second occurrence?

Has any of the "Climate Science" made an accurate prediction? I do not know of one. I have heard of several incorrect predictions, have I missed the correct ones?

Has any of the "Climate Science" made an accurate prediction? I do not know of one.

Not only that ;with the destruction of the raw data they could never even duplicate results... a prime criteria for scientific integrity . In the case in New Zealand where all the data was obtained;an honest graphing of the data showed completely different results than were published.

Has any of the "Climate Science" made an accurate prediction? I do not know of one. I have heard of several incorrect predictions, have I missed the correct ones?Hello Cats:

Uhhh, the polar ice caps melting... You missed it, huh? I don't know how. They used to be BIG, and now they aren't.

excon

Uhhh, the polar ice caps melting... You missed it, huh? I dunno how. They used to be BIG, and now they aren't.

I think it's called Summer. Last year the arctic ice increased by a half million square miles (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/18/will-msm-report-2008-arctic-ice-increase) and the ice between Canada and SW Greenland was at its highest level in 15 years (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/16/ice-between-canada-and-sw-greenland-highest-level-in-15-years/).

All I know is it's 8 degrees this morning in Texas, a little global warming would be nice right now. Meanwhile, don't exhale or the EPA will be on your a$$.

Hello again, Steve:

Sooooo, if I were to mention the UN report released yesterday saying that the last decade was the warmest on record, you'd call that a lie too, huh?

Ok, then I won't mention it.

excon

Sooooo, if I were to mention the UN report released yesterday saying that the last decade was the warmest on record, you'd call that a lie too, huh?

You mean the report by the same IPCC that relies on the same discredited scientists pushing their religion on us? No, I don't believe much of anything they say.

Willis Eschenbach has been looking over the data (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) (what he can get) and found that, "before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin (weather station at Darwin Airpot in Australia) were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century."

Here are the graphs showing the difference between raw and "homogenized" data. Notice the difference between the red (adjusted) and the blue (raw):
http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-12/cru-darwin7.jpg

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-12/cru-darwin8.jpg


Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.

That's how you "hide the decline."

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know if you noticed, but I don't publish scientific data. I just publish scientific conclusions. I don't do the data, because first and foremost, I don't UNDERSTAND the data. And, I'm a fellow who has a good understanding of science..

I don't do the data, because I know it can be misleading if taken OUT of the context of the totality of the data. IS there, within the science community, data that conflicts with the consensus? Yes, there is? Is it surprising that you, or Willis Eschenbach could find it? No. Does it change the overwhelming totality of the scientific conclusions? No.

You don't like it when I talk rudimentary science, like it hurts to throw trash into the air... But, you NEVER do contradict me, or show me data that says its just fine to do that... You even argue that it's not, but you have NO solutions to industries that do that. Or at least you've offered none that I can find. Drill, baby drill is NOT a solution.

So, in terms of convincing ME that global warming is a hoax, which is what you believe, you're going to have to do better than finding obscure people who aren't scientists, to debunk it.

excon

230 members of the American Physical Society ,(some of its most distinguished members),have petitioned the society to suspend release of it's 2007 report until it can be determined to what extent it is tainted with fudged and faulty data from the CRU .


Pressure on this venerable society of physicists, which was founded in 1899 at Columbia University, is coming from members who are squarely in the scientific mainstream and are alarmed at the state of climate science revealed in the leaked e-mail messages and program files from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
Physicists Stick to Warming Claim Post-ClimateGate - Taking Liberties - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml)

Those files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and discussed how to conceal apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law. Internal investigations are now underway at East Anglia, Penn State, and the British government's weather forecasting unit.

One APS dissenting member is William Happer, a physicist who runs the Happer Lab at Princeton University. Another is Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A third is Robert Austin, another Princeton physics professor and head of a biophysics research group. They've been circulating a letter saying: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done."

Of the signatories so far, Happer says, 77 are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 members of the National Academies, one is a Nobel laureate, and there is a large number of authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research. He adds: "Some have accepted a career risk by signing the petition. The 230 odd signatories can hardly be dismissed as lightweights compared to those who spread the message of impending climate disaster."

REAL scientists should be alarmed because this reflects badly on their profession. Thankfully responsible ones are taking notice and beginning to speak up.

Hello again,

Ok, I got it. Somebody cheated, and you think it changes things.. To what degree, may I ask?

a. Global warming is a hoax

b. Global warming is NOT a hoax, but man has nothing to do with it.

c. Global warming IS happening and IS man made, but if we just drilled for more oil, it'll go away.

d. Global warming IS happening, and I don't know what to do about it, but CAP and TRADE ain't it.

e. Global warming IS happening and I don't care, as long as my pick up starts every morning, and my stock in Exxon don't go down.

f. I just like to piss excon off.

g. I'm bored.

h. None of the above, and here's why.

excon

I don't know if you noticed, but I don't publish scientific data. I just publish scientific conclusions.

Easy point to understand, if the data is faulty then the conclusion is likely faulty also.


You don't like it when I talk rudimentary science, like it hurts to throw trash into the air... But, you NEVER do contradict me, or show me data that says its just fine to do that...

Maybe that's because we've agreed with what seems like a thousand times that throwing trash into the air isn't good. Why would I contradict you on something I agree with?


You even argue that it's not, but you have NO solutions to industries that do that.

See above. Also for what seems like the thousandth time, all I've ever called for is an honest debate. Telling everyone repeatedly that I don't think throwing trash into the air is bad is patently dishonest.


So, in terms of convincing ME that global warming is a hoax, which is what you believe, you're going to have to do better than finding obscure people who aren't scientists, to debunk it.

You can't form an "educated" opinion if you don't read the post. You're for education aren't you?

You can't form an "educated" opinion if you don't read the post. You're for education aren't you?Hello again, Steve:

I read it, already. It didn't do it for me.

excon

The magnitude of damage this scam is doing to science is probably beyond the grasp of most of us. What can be trusted now ?
From my perspective it would be irresponsible for a public official to base policy on what is proving to be a falsification.

Frangipanis, the quote from Ms. O'neill (is she a PhD?) is fascinating, but she is not describing the Scientific method. She is describing the Scholastic method. Both are useful methods of study, but by using the Scientific method you can debunk invalid conclusions easily with just one criterion: can you predict a second occurance?

Has any of the "Climate Science" made an accurate prediction? I do not know of one. I have heard of several incorrect predictions, have I missed the correct ones?

There is no debate as scientific proof is already accessible. All nit-picking does is add to the inertia. You could debate this issue to oblivion, Catsmine.

"there is no debate" Ha ha ha

I wonder if the horse riders said that when the first automobiles were made. Or when the wright brothers tried to fly, or iwhen the sun revolved around the earth?


G&P

Climate Change: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Department of Climate Change - Science - facts and fiction - Think Change (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/science.aspx)

frangipanis

I'll accept the premise of human caused climate change if you can show me evidence that it is warmer now than in the Medieval Warm Period ;a time when the Vikings colonized Greenland and Vineland... or that the Viking spewed C02 out of their SUVs.

Hello again, tom:

Way back when we revered education, we lead the world in science & technology. That was because we thought science was science - like English was English, or algebra was algebra..

It's true that all NEW science looks like magic to the uninformed. That scares people... Maybe that's why they turned science into interest group. If we thought that way when Henry Ford invented the car, or the Wright brothers took to the air, we'da burned those people at the stake, and we'd still be cooking our dinner in the fireplace of our log cabins...

I don't know what happened so that people can deny what's right in front of them.. You're not the only denier, tom... In the face of overwhelming evidence that vaccination saves lives, there's a growing movement of people who refuse to protect their children. The growth in the alternative health industry is a direct result of our disbelief in science... I could go on.

No, I don't know where this denialism came from, but I know it doesn't bode well for us. Not at all.

excon

Way back when we revered education, we lead the world in science & technology. That was because we thought science was science - like English was English, or algebra was algebra..

We revered education when it was an education, before it became an indoctrination and dumbing down of our children.


It's true that all NEW science looks like magic to the uninformed. That scares people...

And by "new science" you mean? Homogenized, value added data? Hiding the decline? Considering it a "travesty" that scientists can't account for a cooling trend? Redefining peer review? What? Those things SHOULD scare people. I don't know why you can't (or is it won't) see that?


we'da burned those people at the stake, and we'd still be cooking our dinner in the fireplace of our log cabins...

Still running with the meme that we're anti-science. You know that's not so.


I don't know what happened so that people can deny what's right in front of them..

I've been wondering the same thing myself.


You're not the only denier, tom... In the face of overwhelming evidence that vaccination saves lives, there's a growing movement of people who refuse to protect their children.

Um, tell them to stop listening to that fool Bill Maher (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=kkn&ei=RjYhS8HcG4iWtgefrMnOBw&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CAcQvwUoAQ&&q=bill+maher+vaccination&spell=1).


No, I don't know where this denialism came from, but I know it doesn't bode well for us. Not at all.

Works both ways, ex. Consensus based on a predetermined conclusion isn't science. The agenda (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kofi-annan/saving-ourselves-fromours_b_385358.html) behind it should bother you, unless you're a one worlder.


Copenhagen offers the prospect of a robust political deal, endorsed by the world's leaders and witnessed by the world's people, that sets out clear targets and a timeline for translating it into law. To be a truly historic achievement, such a deal must do two things.

First, it must lay the basis for a global regime... -Khofi Annan

I'm not into that.

The agenda behind it should bother you, unless you're a one worlder. Hello again, Steve:

Let me say it another way. Science, like algebra, has NO agenda... On the other hand, people who DENY science are the ones with the agenda. Yes, it DOES bother me.

You speak about dumbing down students, but you don't want 'em to learn anything about sex. You don't want 'em to learn about evolution. You don't want 'em to learn biology... You don't want 'em to learn history... Frankly, looks to ME, like YOU folks are the ones dumbing the kids down.

excon

It sure helps forward the debate when people who express healthy skepticism are tarred as deniers ;as if to equate us with holocaust-deniers . But OK I can play that game . Attacking the critic is a well worn and tried method for people who have no other defenses to offer . My church used that method well in the dark ages.

I am talking temperature patters that go back centuries(It was warm in the 11th century ;as warm if not warmer than it is now ) and am countered with "truths "and what you call "overwhelming evidence " in a very short snapshot in time.

It's ironic really .Science goes back to times before humans exist to make a case for evolution... and a compelling case it is . But when it comes to climate ;they only see changes that have occurred since the industrial revolution began. It doesn't make sense.

They do a huge disservice to legitimate scientific inquiry .

It is a historical undeniable FACT that the medieval warming period existed . All the selective examination of tree rings can't hide that fact. It is also a FACT that there was a Little Ice age that followed. It shut off the Greenland colonies as pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland. There were winter fairs on the iced over Tames River . As late as 1780 people walked across NY harbor from Manhattan to Staten Island in the winter . Glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, destroying farms and crushing villages. In 1658, a Swedish army marched across the Great Belt to Denmark to invade Copenhagen. The Baltic Sea froze over, enabling sled rides from Poland to Sweden.

All the evidence shows that we began to leave that period in the mid-19th century .

I'm not making this up . IT IS FACT !
So I ask again . Was the Medieval Warm period and the Little Iceage that followed it the result of man made C02 emissions ?

So I ask again . Was the Medieval Warm period and the Little Iceage that followed it the result of man made C02 emissions ?Hello again, tom:

No. Does that mean that the current global warming ISN'T caused by man? No.

That's the best you got?

excon

Yes that's correct .You hit on the truth . Science doesn't know that the current warming (despite a decade long cooling ) is the result of human CO2 emissions . But the warmist zealots concocted a conclusion that it is to support a political agenda.

Evo Morales's Climate ambasssador to Copenhagen is advancing a proposal "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth" that rejects cap and trade solutions, and instead demands that developed states pay damages done to the planet to compensate the developing nations as they rise.

The whole hidden political agenda here is wealth distribution and punishing the Western nations. [When Clete responds he will add a malthusian angle to the agenda also .There are just too many damn people exhaling ! ]

Let me say it another way. Science, like algebra, has NO agenda... On the other hand, people who DENY science are the ones with the agenda. Yes, it DOES bother me.

Then why do so many libs complain about the health care industry daring to make a profit from what they do? How many scientific breakthroughs are the result of private enterprise with a profit motive? Are scientists free from any such influences? They have ideologies, they have to make a living, or do you think they're all just in it for the good of mankind? You're really not that naïve are you?

It should be obvious to you but when scientists engage in manipulating data, threatening to destroy data rather than release it under FOI requests, and suppress dissent, that's an agenda.


You speak about dumbing down students, but you don't want 'em to learn anything about sex. You don't want 'em to learn about evolution. You don't want 'em to learn biology... You don't want 'em to learn history... Frankly, looks to ME, like YOU folks are the ones dumbing the kids down.

As with us being anti-science that's just plain wrong. I don't want my kids learning a planned parenthood curriculum. I don't want my kids reading an Obama “Safe Schools” Czar Kevin Jennings reading list (http://patterico.com/2009/12/04/obama-safe-schools-czars-reading-list/). I'm perfectly capable of teaching my kids about sex on my own and am not willing to surrender my parental rights to the leftist education establishment.

I don't care if they learn about evolution, as long as it's taught from a scientific basis and not an ideological point of view. Good luck with that one.

I'm a huge supporter of biology classes, as long as biology is what's being taught.

History is one of my favorite subjects, just not a revisionist history based on an ideology.

What surprises me is that you don't agree with my take. You probably hate the idea of any religious slant in public schools, but apparently can't see the religion in sex ed, evolution and climate science.

There are just too may damn people exhaling ! ]

Hence my newly minted profile pic. :D

New era, Tom.

No. Does that mean that the current global warming ISN'T caused by man? No.

That's the best you got?

excon

Hi ex I don't know why he bothers. It is clear you are a religious believer in Global Warming, that is a belief that man has become God and can make global scale changes in the weather and we must worship at the alter by overturning our technology

The evidence is, ex, seen over a long period, there are short periods of warming and long periods of cooling culminating in an ice age, that makes ice age the norm and what we are experiencing just a short term lull and that all this takes place without the intervention of man. Where did I get this information?from science, ex, well documented science. Do CO2 concentrations have anything to do with the warming periods, ex, well they may be a consequence of them

Fraginpanis
It amazes me that there is a lack of alarm at the corruption of the scientific process. Perhaps you don't understand that all the conclusions are invalid or suspect because of that ?
Do you not realize that all the links you provide are the results of suspect research ?

The whole hidden political agenda here is wealth distribution and punishing the Western nations. [When Clete responds he will add a malthusian angle to the agenda also .There are just too many damn people exhaling ! ]

I don't like people doing my thinking for me Tom as I have many points of view on climate change and the solutions.

The first solution is that we have to abandon the science fiction viewpoint; that is the view that our technology can overcome any problem

The next solution is that we must abandon the one world government viewpoint; that is the view that the UN or some other alleged Committee of the Whole can enforce a set of rules and penalties

The third solution is we must abandon is the everyone is entitled to develop to the same standard of living before taking responsibility: This is the view that we owe developing nations something.

The forth and only real solution is that we abandon the business as usual viewpoint; This is the view point that says we cannot act because of the economic consequences

And of course I have left the best until last because it is the only ultimate solution, not only do we need to return to pre-industrial levels of emissions but also to pre-industrial levels of population. This is the trogladite viewpoint.

So I know that realistically the world is not ready for any of these solutions and so back to business as usual but then we really don't need solutions if the problem really doesn't exist or it is a natural process which is what some leading scientists are telling us. This is the sky is isn't falling viewpoint.

If it is a natural process, a cycle associated with solar variability or variations in Earth's orbit then we may as well get used to the possibility that things are going to be difficult for a while. The Earth will heal itself and that might mean that human beings will have to get serious about many things they are doing

fraginpanis
It amazes me that there is a lack of alarm at the corruption of the scientific process. Perhaps you don't understand that all the conclusions are invalid or suspect because of that ?
Do you not realize that all the links you provide are the results of suspect research ?

Lol! Geez, Tom, you make me laugh :)

Why don't those that have faith in AGW suggest increasing nuclear power ? Why have a conference in Copenhagen at all, when all the politicians and scientists and press traveling there are causing more CO2 production which they seek to decrease?

Frangi the first link is of CO2 levels but no corresponding temperature graph? Also remember that in science, correlation does not prove causality.

Ex made the comment that he does not look at the data??
How do you arrive at a conclusion without examining the data? If that data has been manipulated, made up, lost, altered etc. how can you trust in what conclusion comes from such data? That would be UNSCIENTIFIC.


G&P

How about supporting a larger investment in solar power? Recent breakthroughs will make it more efficient and affordable within the coming years and we're likely to see a big change, with most residential areas making use of solar power.

With buildings generating more than 40 percent of greenhouse gases worldwide, real estate has been identified as a leading industry for addressing climate change.

solar power, Andrew McInnon - Google Search (http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=solar+power%2C+Andrew+McInnon&meta=&btnG=Google+Search)

I don't pretend to be a scientist inthebox, but I've taken enough interest to have made a judgement call on whose opinion to trust based on their expert knowledge of science.

Garnaut Review Web Site: Home (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf)

I am not opposed to the development of any alternative energy option. When they become commercially viable I am sure they will compete in the marketplace.

There have indeed been some breakthroughs in solar energy technology. But government putting the cart before the horse isn't going to make it happen any quicker. Edison had to invent a workable incandecent bulb first before the infrastructure was put in place to replace whale oil street lanterns.

I am not opposed to the development of any alternative energy option. When they become commercially viable I am sure they will compete in the marketplace.

There have indeed been some breakthroughs in solar energy technology. But government putting the cart before the horse aint gonna make it happen any quicker. Edison had to invent a workable incandecent bulb first before the infrastructure was put in place to replace whale oil street lanterns.

Get real Tom I thought you further advanced than that. The scientific method requires demonstratable proof not computer models we might as well go back to consulting the oracle at Delphi. Solar power is along way from being practable

My approval of the development of alternate energy has nothing at all to do with AGW. I am into energy independence and having sufficient energy to fuel the 21st century economy . My whole approach is "all hands on deck" and let the market decide.

the scientific method requires demonstratable proof not computer models

Aren't computer models what started the whole "global warming" religion in the first place?

Aren't computer models what started the whole "global warming" religion in the first place?
It doesn't take much to become a religion I guess, but then again I always knew that. :)

This has nothing to do with religion. It's about the planet we live on. It's not about power or money.

Climate models driven by scenarios of greenhouse gas and aerosol (small particle) emissions estimate a rise in temperature of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100 assuming no actions to reduce climate change. While this is comparable to previously occurring climate change, it is occurring at an unprecedented pace and the changes would affect a larger and less mobile population.
Climate Change - Ask a Real Expert - Ask an expert - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science (http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/climatechange/)

Okay. I challenge each of you to seek out a respected climate change scientist and share your thoughts with them, then return here and let me know how it went.

Aren't computer models what started the whole "global warming" religion in the first place?Hello Cats:

Seems to me, that people who already HAVE religion are the one's calling the kettle black...

As a matter of fact, it's religion that PREVENTS some people from seeing the truth... You DID read Gals belief, on another thread, that climate is in God's purview - not man's.

Nope. I'm going to take the scientists word. Not your preachers...

excon

Okay. I challenge each of you to seek out a respected climate change scientist and share your thoughts with them, then return here and let me know how it went.

I sent them my question, we'll see what happens. I did notice there weren't any questions on Climategate answered so I doubt mine will ever see the light of day.

Fraginpanis looks like the expert is relying on that hockey stick graph[the graph that showed flat temperatures for centuries, then suddenly in the last century, rises sharply ] that doesn't even consider the Medieval Warming period even though it was clearly in the time depicted in the graph.

Ask the scientists how any of the conclusions can be trusted when there was manipulation of the data and data destruction. Can any scientific conclusions be made from corrupted and data lacking integrity ?

Ask the expert what the expert thinks about scientific work that can't be duplicated because of data destruction.

Ask the expert about New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit (NIWA )massaging climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

Here is the mushroom cloud from the mouth of Phil Jones that destroys all the evidence .

“I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.”

You can't get away from that . It exposed the whole fraud.

You can't get away from that . It exposed the whole fraud.Hello again, tom:

Here's where you climate change deniers go wrong... (1) You think science is an interest group that has an agenda. (2) You think that because you found some cheating scientists, that the entire body of evidence is skewed. (3) You have a predisposition AGAINST science. That's clear from our conversations about ID.

Consequently, your pronouncements regarding science aren't to be taken seriously.

excon

PS> Look. It would be like ME arguing with YOU on the Christianity board, about what a particular passage in the Bible means... You ain't going to buy ANYTHING I say, because you already KNOW I think it's ALL bunk.

THe code that was released is quite telling also. One of my favorites - and the subject of my question to frangipanis' expert - was "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

Others (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/):


"What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

"NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY
REMOVED"

"*BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem."

"we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400,"

"we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400"

"artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set."

Yeah, that artificial data makes for some good science.

You think that because you found some cheating scientists, that the entire body of evidence is skewed. (3) You have a predisposition AGAINST science. That's clear from our conversations about ID.

Ex, just keep repeating those lies, then click your heels 3 times and you'll be back in Kansas in no time.

You have a predisposition AGAINST science. That's clear from our conversations about ID.



You can keep on saying that and it won't make it so.


You think science is an interest group that has an agenda.
Nope I think the scientists who did the research on AGW for the UN had a political agenda.

You think that because you found some cheating scientists, that the entire body of evidence is skewed
Any legitimate scientist would scrap any hypothesis based on the corrupted evidence and data and start over.

Any legitimate scientist would scrap any hypothesis based on the corrupted evidence and data and start over.Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree with the above.

However, your mistake is assuming that the TOTALITY of the evidence IS based upon corrupted data, and therefore tainted... Your belief that scientists rely on OTHER scientists findings for their starting point, belies a basic MISUNDERSTANDING about how science is done.

It would be like ME telling you during your religious ceremony, the wine goes in the OTHER glass... It really wouldn't matter how many studies I cited showing the proper glass, because you'd KNOW going in, that I KNOW nothing about your religion. In fact, you'd KNOW that I'd be trying to debunk your religion.

How serious would you take me in a discussion like that?

excon

However, your mistake is assuming that the TOTALITY of the evidence IS based upon corrupted data, and therefore tainted... Your belief that scientists rely on OTHER scientists findings for their starting point, belies a basic MISUNDERSTANDING about how science is done.

Pay attention here ex, CRU and others argue that the other two data sets are independent and confirm their findings. That claim is false, they are to a significant degree interdependent (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement-made-by-phil-jones-to-the-media-on-the-independence-of-the-global-surface-temperature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/).


In the report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1” on page 32 it is written

“The global surface air temperature data sets used in this report are to a large extent based on data readily exchanged internationally, e.g. through CLIMAT reports and the WMO publication Monthly Climatic Data for the World. Commercial and other considerations prevent a fuller exchange, though the United States may be better represented than many other areas. In this report, we present three global surface climate records, created from available data by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [GISS], NOAA National Climatic Data Center [NCDC], and the cooperative project of the U.K. Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit [CRU]of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v).”

One of Phil Jones' emails seems to acknowledge this interdependence:


"Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center."

Next argument please?

And you show a lack of understanding of science yourself. The fact is that the bulk of the understanding about AGW is based on the work of scientist like Michael Mann.
We are seeing example after example of an inability by other scientists to be able to replicate the results .A very basic for valid science.

[I]

Okay. I challenge each of you to seek out a respected climate change scientist and share your thoughts with them, then return here and let me know how it went.

I listen to what intelligent people say, I have listened to many but I particularly like the way Bob Carter explains the problem, I have posted links to his lectures previously

Well, I did in fact ask a respected climate change scientist his prognosis of the future and his answer is 'it is like driving down a mountain with faulty breaks. You might get to the bottom and be okay, but... '

Why are we gambling with the future? Why not accept the bulk of scientific evidence that's been thoroughly scrutinised under pressure by a peer group of experts and start to turn this around while we may still have time?

I listen to what intelligent people say, I have listened to many but I particularly like the way Bob Carter explains the problem, I have posted links to his lectures previously

Is it possible paraclete he is saying what a lot of people want to hear?

Why are we gambling with the future? Why not accept the bulk of scientific evidence Hello again, f:

Because, as you may have noticed, they think that accepting climate change means our economy will be destroyed...

I really don't get that. Oh, I suppose farmers thought the economy was going to be wrecked when our factories were hiring farm workers... But, it wasn't. I suppose cotton producers thought the southern economy was going to be destroyed when the cotton gin was invented... But, it wasn't. They also thought the southern economy was going to be destroyed when slavery was outlawed... But, it wasn't..

Frankly, green technology has the ability to lift our economy out of the doldrums like all those dreaded scientific inventions eventually did.

It also has the distinct advantage of allowing us to keep more of our energy dollars here at HOME, instead of supplying our enemies with the money to buy the guns they use to shoot at us.. For that reason, and that reason alone, you'd think the righty's would be on board...

But, noooo... That IS their new word: no...

excon

Hello again, tom:

Here's where you climate change deniers go wrong... (1) You think science is an interest group that has an agenda. (2) You think that because you found some cheating scientists, that the entire body of evidence is skewed. (3) You have a predisposition AGAINST science. That's clear from our conversations about ID.

Consequently, your pronouncements regarding science aren't to be taken seriously.

excon

PS> Look. It would be like ME arguing with YOU on the Christianity board, about what a particular passage in the Bible means... You ain't gonna buy ANYTHING I say, because you already KNOW I think it's ALL bunk.


The fraud is there - that is your true evidence, not models. Remember just 30 years ago the threat was global cooling? Another thing demonstrated by CRU and the likes of Gore et al. they would LOSE MONEY if AGW is exposed as the hoax that it is . They have a vested interest in the form of funding to keep the hoax going.

You have mentioned ID several times. Tell me, where is the REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE that evolution is anything but a theory? What scientist has published in a peer reviewed journal that given a test tube and nucleotides that even a single cell that can reproduce can be produced? You do know one of the basis of life is DNA and the genetic code. This is so much more complex than a computer programmer intelligently producing code.
Everything we use from the house you live in, the car you drive, the HVAC system in your house, the clothes you wear is INTELLIGENTLY designed. In fact experiments in science are INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED.
If you want to believe that random genetic mutations produced new genetic information that was selected for, that that system led to life as we know it, well show me the proof.

The Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest, led to eugenics. This was widely accepted by people like Hitler and led to the Holocaust. The same theory that Margaret Sanger subscribed to when she founded PLanned parenthoood as a means of black genocide. This is what you believe?


G&P

Hello again, f:

Because, as you may have noticed, they think that accepting climate change means our economy will be destroyed...

I really don't get that. Oh, I suppose farmers thought the economy was going to be wrecked when our factories were hiring farm workers... But, it wasn't. I suppose cotton producers thought the southern economy was going to be destroyed when the cotton gin was invented... But, it wasn't. They also thought the southern economy was going to be destroyed when slavery was outlawed... But, it wasn't..

Frankly, green technology has the ability to lift our economy out of the doldrums like all those dreaded scientific inventions eventually did.

It also has the distinct advantage of allowing us to keep more of our energy dollars here at HOME, instead of supplying our enemies with the money to buy the guns they use to shoot at us.. For that reason, and that reason alone, you'd think the righty's would be on board...

But, noooo... That IS their new word: no...

excon

Thanks, excon. Always enjoy reading what you have to say. I tend to see it as denial of a threat less immediate as a gun being pointed at you and resistance to change too, and let's face it, there are going to be people displaced by a green revolution. Climate change happens incrementally and almost imperceptively to the untrained eye, which is why it isn't registering. But hey, how much better would it feel for our kids and grandchildren if we were mostly building towards a future based on sustainable energy systems.

But hey, how much better would it feel for our kids and grandchildren if we were mostly building towards a future based on sustainable energy systems.

So now it's about feeling good?

so now it's about feeling good?

Why not feel good about what you're doing? It's better for your health to be engaged in something positive, especially if it can make a difference to the world. Our kids deserve to have something positive to aim for in life. It makes them feel good.

U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Decathlon Home Page (http://www.solardecathlon.org/)

See my response #91 Excon continues to mischaracterize my position.

You may be willing to wreck the economy without solid proof of the danger based on what has turned out to be faulty and fraudulent research. I am not .
Your bulk of scientific evidence in fact has been filtered through very few scientists into reports generated by the UN IPCC . Why don't you comment on the New Zealand revelation ? New Zealand's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research '(NIWA) graph showing warming over the last century was put to the test. When the data was put on a graph by an independent group the results showed New Zealand's temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half.

When confronted the NIWA said that adjustments to their graph were made based on different temperature adjustments between historial weather station sites .But when asked to produce that data ,NIWA chief scientist David Wratt said he would not. Why not ? What has he got to hide ?
Was that another "isolated " misdeed ?

So now we have 2 major groups on different sides of the globe screwing around with results to support a predetermined position. And you tell me we should make major policy decisions based on that ? How do they claim "peer review" on one hand while preventing any review whatsoever of the core of their "science"?

Isaac Asimov wrote a novel, 'A Whiff of Death', which revolved around the seriousness of falsifying data to make it fit one's own theory. In the novel, the fraudster was murdered by a senior scientist who felt very strongly about scientific treason. I think that the punishment should at least be a drumming out of the field .
Asimov's novel gives an excellent description of the temptation scientists face to falsify data when experiments are refute one's pet theory .I saw this type of activity in the pharmaceutical field.. surely the same people who are dismissing the AGW manipulations would rightly be outraged if a medicine was marketted after such shoddy and corrupted methods of development .

I say if you want to move into a grass covered yurt you are free to do so. But what you suggest is that we all should be compelled to change or the planet will be destroyed .You had better show me more compelling evidence than what you have to convince me of that .The manmade global warming alarmist movement will ultimately fail and be a curious footnote to history . The question is how much damage to humans will they inflict with the policies that are produced by their actions.

Why are we gambling with the future? Why not accept the bulk of scientific evidence that's been thoroughly scrutinised under pressure by a peer group of experts and start to turn this around while we may still have time?

frangipanis, even if the bulk of scientific evidence proves right there is still a political agenda behind this that I cannot accept. As I posted earlier Khofi Annan made it clear, "First, it must lay the basis for a global regime." As tom has noted it's also about a massive transfer of wealth. That my friend is "political" science, not science. So I'd ask you the same thing, why are we gambling with the future?

Charles Krauthammer has it right, "Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda."

But I know, there is no agenda in science, right ex? Copenhagen is not about about saving the world, it does not have your interests in mind, it doesn't care if your brakes are working or not. In fact, I'd say they'd just as soon cut your brake lines.

frangipanis, even if the bulk of scientific evidence proves right there is still a political agenda behind this that I cannot accept. As I posted earlier Khofi Annan made it clear, "First, it must lay the basis for a global regime." As tom has noted it's also about a massive transfer of wealth. That my friend is "political" science, not science. So I'd ask you the same thing, why are we gambling with the future?

Charles Krauthammer has it right, "Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda."

But I know, there is no agenda in science, right ex? Copenhagen is not about about saving the world, it does not have your interests in mind, it doesn't care if your brakes are working or not. In fact, I'd say they'd just as soon cut your brake lines.

The same has been said about corporations with vested interests pursuing their own political agendas, speechless. Most scientists that I'm aware of want to have their findings published in a reputable journal where politics has no place.

But I know, there is no agenda in science, right ex? Hello again, Righty's:

Ok, let's take this from a different angle... I'm into conspiracy theories. I love 'em... So, these leftist scientists created this global warming hoax so they could do what? Destroy the world?? Is that what you think they're doing?

Time to call in the guy's with the white coats.

excon

Even the most generous interpretations of the emails say that

“The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts...”

And here I thought it was settled science.


AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails)
The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Now does that sound like legitimate unattached scientific inquiry to you ? Sounds like lipstick on a pig to me. Fake but Accurate

so driven by a causeHello again, tom:

There are individuals, and there are professions. I don't doubt the fallibility of the individual, but I DO doubt the fallibility of the profession.

I suppose what you are saying is that scientists become scientists so they can shape global politics. I, on the other hand, believe that they become scientists to promote science...

I do not, and never will believe that science has an agenda. Because you DO believe that, indicates to me that you have no understanding of science. Therefore, you have no credibility in that arena with me.

excon

PS> ID has been mentioned, and is STILL being supported by you climate change deniers... I say again, if you give ID ANY credence whatsoever, it's an indication that you have NO understanding of science... You're not even in the same ballpark.

The same has been said about corporations with vested interests pursuing their own political agendas, speechless. Most scientists that I'm aware of want to have their findings published in a reputable journal where politics has no place.

And that takes us right back to these 'reputable' scientists manipulating the peer review process, threatening journal editors and otherwise suppressing dissent. The politics is there, it's obvious, and it's unfathomable how you guys can't see it now.

Hello again, Righty's:

Ok, let's take this from a different angle... I'm into conspiracy theories. I love 'em.... So, these leftist scientists created this global warming hoax so they could do what? Destroy the world??? Is that what you think they're doing?

What part of suppressing dissenting research, manipulating and destroying data, threatening to "redefine" the peer review process and obstructing legal FOI requests do you not get?

PS> ID has been mentioned, and is STILL being supported by you climate change deniers.... I say again, if you give ID ANY credence whatsoever, it's an indication that you have NO understanding of science... You're not even in the same ballpark.

You've just lost all credibility with me, ex. That's a shame.

The politics is there, it's obvious, and it's unfathomable how you guys can't see it now.Hello again, Steve:

It's getting monotonous, but I'll try again.

I don't deny that you found cheaters. I don't deny that these individuals have politics on their mind...

What I DENY is that these small pipsqueak scientists were able to alter the overwhelming totality of evidence.

Are we clear?

excon

PS> This is post #125 - a nice round number. The next time you suggest that I don't think there was cheating going on, I'll just post; "#125". You'll know what I mean.

You've just lost all credibility with me, ex. That's a shame.Hello again, Steve:

Because I said what I did about ID, I should have NO credibility with you on religious matters. I wouldn't have it any other way.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Because I said what I did about ID, I should have NO credibility with you on religious matters. I wouldn't have it any other way.

This goes beyond having credibility in one particular area, ex. You continue to misrepresent us with the same claptrap about ID, throwing trash into the air and us being anti-science. You know better and yet you persist. In so doing you refuse to have an honest discussion, and that is all I've ever asked for on environmental issues. If you can't face us honestly you have no credibility.

Hello again, Steve:

It goes both ways. Do you think the country will be destroyed if we embrace global warming? Would you NOT like to see our money going to Arab fundamentalists? Do you NOT think we have the best entrepreneurs in the world?

excon

And that takes us right back to these 'reputable' scientists manipulating the peer review process, threatening journal editors and otherwise suppressing dissent. The politics is there, it's obvious, and it's unfathomable how you guys can't see it now.

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force"- Thomas Jefferson

Hello Speech,

Yes, why does it seem that reputable scientists have a political agenda?

I know you like irony so you might like this. I think the answer is right under our noses in the form of Thomas Jefferson's Quote. However, I need to change it somewhat (apologies to Jefferson).

"Whenever the General Government and Private Enterprise assumes undelegated powers it acts in an authoritative manner by way of coercion "

I don't think that political agenda can explain away the actions of so many scientists, in fact I am sure it cannot. I think that 'The Boiling Frog Principle' which I will now put forward (at its very least) is as good as any 'political agenda' theory.

The boiling frog idea suggests that if you put a frog in boiling water it will immediately jump out of the pot. However, if you start with cold water and slowly turn up the heat the frog will happily boil to death.How does this relate to climate change scientists?

It seems to me that over the years highly qualified government and private enterprise job advertisements have evolved into something I call 'Orwellian jobspeak'. It is easy for me to say this because when I went for my job all I had to do is present my qualifications and not much else. That was in the past, but times have changed. Anyway, more to the point. What is jobspeak?

Highly qualified jobs require certain essentials, including qualifications.
I have summarized non-qualification type essentials into a type of average without naming any government departments in particular.

(a) Being a team player.
(b) Knowledge of activities which constitute best practice.
(c) Develop plans within the objectives of the organization.
(d) Promote a positive public image of the organization in line with its objectives.
(e) Being familiar with research concepts and have a commitment to this research.

What would happen if a climate scientist went for a job in a university or government research organization? Would they ask him about his current research into climate change? No. In typical jobspeak they would ask him a loaded question such as, "What is your current research into Global Warming?"

Scientists may start with the best of intentions in relation to researching climate change, but the scientific waters have started to heat very quickly. No doubt some wished they had jumped earlier.

What these organizations are actually looking for is someone suitably qualified while being a mouthpiece at the same time.

Of course this is only my theory. However, as stated earlier, at the very least it is as good as any conspiracy theory.

AS regards to my post above I would like to add some additional thoughts. (nothing beats making it up as you go along)

Having forced 'political agenda' out the front door I will try and sneak it in through the back door.

I think we are attacking the wrong people when we are attacking the climate scientists. The political agenda belongs to the organizations which have a stake in global warming.

I DO doubt the fallibility of the profession.


Well there you have it. Enough said... Science is infallible . With all the incorrect conclusions science has proposed over the years I find that an incredible statement .
Flat Earth ;Geocentric universe ;the theory that all substances were made from earth air fire and water;ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves... there are so many superseded scientific theories they would be impossible to list here.

However ,I shall not try to convince you to change your devotion.

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force"- Thomas Jefferson

Hello Speech,

Yes, why does it seem that reputable scientists have a political agenda?

I know you like irony so you might like this. I think the answer is right under our noses in the form of Thomas Jefferson's Quote. However, I need to change it somewhat (apologies to Jefferson).

"Whenever the General Government and Private Enterprise assumes undelegated powers it acts in an authoritative manner by way of coercion "

I don't think that political agenda can explain away the actions of so many scientists, in fact I am sure it cannot. I think that 'The Boiling Frog Principle' which I will now put forward (at its very least) is as good as any 'political agenda' theory.

The boiling frog idea suggests that if you put a frog in boiling water it will immediately jump out of the pot. However, if you start with cold water and slowly turn up the heat the frog will happily boil to death.How does this relate to climate change scientists?

It seems to me that over the years highly qualified government and private enterprise job advertisements have evolved into something I call 'Orwellian jobspeak'. It is easy for me to say this because when I went for my job all I had to do is present my qualifications and not much else. That was in the past, but times have changed. Anyway, more to the point. What is jobspeak?

Highly qualified jobs require certain essentials, including qualifications.
I have summarized non-qualification type essentials into a type of average without naming any government departments in particular.

(a) Being a team player.
(b) Knowledge of activities which constitute best practice.
(c) Develop plans within the objectives of the organization.
(d) Promote a positive public image of the organization in line with its objectives.
(e) Being familiar with research concepts and have a commitment to this research.

What would happen if a climate scientist went for a job in a university or government research organization? Would they ask him about his current research into climate change? No. In typical jobspeak they would ask him a loaded question such as, "What is your current research into Global Warming?"

Scientists may start out with the best of intentions in relation to researching climate change, but the scientific waters have started to heat very quickly. No doubt some wished they had jumped earlier.

What these organizations are actually looking for is someone suitably qualified while being a mouthpiece at the same time.

Of course this is only my theory. However, as stated earlier, at the very least it is as good as any conspiracy theory.

Hmmm...
Carbon News and Info > Jobs in climate change > Latest climate job vacancies > Job Vacancy: Climate Change Scientist (http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=1482)

Hello fransipanis,

Clearly you have found a counter example and therefore my premises are incorrect or inadequate. Well done!

This being the case (incorrect premises) this does not rule out the possibility my conclusion is correct. Therefore, I think we can still get a lot of mileage out of the claim that it is the organizations involved in global warming which drive the political agenda not the scientists.

What these organizations are actually looking for is someone suitably qualified while being a mouthpiece at the same time.

, I think we can still get a lot of mileage out of the claim that it is the organizations involved in global warming which drive the political agenda not the scientists.

Now when I make such claims . I am accused of being anti-science. I have been in the health care related industries my whole adult life and I can attest to the pressure researchers are under to "produce" .

I'll accept the premise that it is the organizations ;be they government ,private business ,education institutions looking to protect grant money who are responsible for the clearly massaged results.
The scientists have to protect their income and source of funding also ;and are willing or reluctant participants.The net result is the same ;a corrupted process.

It goes both ways. Do you think the country will be destroyed if we embrace global warming? Would you NOT like to see our money going to Arab fundamentalists? Do you NOT think we have the best entrepreneurs in the world?

Irrelevant to the point. I'm not misrepresenting your position.

Irrelevant to the point. I'm not misrepresenting your position.Hello again, Steve:

And, IF I understood YOUR position, we could talk... But, I don't...

You don't think throwing your trash into the air is good, but I don't know what you propose to DO about it... All I know is what you DON'T want to do about it. You should excuse me if, in the absence of a right wing proposal, I question whether you really DO think throwing trash into the air is bad..

I bring up the questions I do, because even IF global warming is a hoax, the fix for it ISN'T. It WILL help our economy. It WILL prevent funding for our enemy's. It WILL make it easier to breathe. In fact, those things are CRUCIAL to the future of our great country...

For those reasons, and those reasons alone, we ALL should embrace the fix... But, all I hear from you, is NO, NO, and then again NO!

excon

And, IF I understood YOUR position, we could talk... But, I don't...

Still irrelevant to the point.


You don't think throwing your trash into the air is good, but I don't know what you propose to DO about it... All I know is what you DON'T want to do about it. You should excuse me if, in the absence of a right wing proposal, I question whether you really DO think throwing trash into the air is bad..

You know ex, if I could afford solar panels for my home I'd get them, Have you priced them? If I could afford a nice new hybrid I'd buy one. If I could afford to replace my windows with new energy efficient windows I would. There ain't enough government money to go around for us all to go green, and the only 'solutions' to that so far are going to benefit the same evil corporations, the same evil rich people and green gurus like Al Gore. So what do YOU propose, the average citizen to surrender all their income to the feds so we can all live happily in our grass huts foraging for insects to get a little protein?


I bring up the questions I do, because even IF global warming is a hoax, the fix for it ISN'T. It WILL help our economy. It WILL prevent funding for our enemy's. It WILL make it easier to breathe. In fact, those things are CRUCIAL to the future of our great country...

The practical fix may be good, the political fix is not. And don't tell me there's no agenda in this.


For those reasons, and those reasons alone, we ALL should embrace the fix... But, all I hear from you, is NO, NO, and then again NO!

I've been a free man all my life, I'm not willing to surrender that to a "global regime" so the left can make assuage their consciences.

The practical fix may be good, the political fix is not. And don't tell me there's no agenda in this.Hello again, Steve:

I don't carry water for anyone. Maybe that's the difference... I'm NOT a Democrat. I don't like 'em much. I like the Republicans even less.

My acknowledgement of a problem should not be confused with support for any particular political fix.. Political fixes, as you say, are rife with agenda.

Because I believe global warming is man made does NOT mean I support cap and trade or what's going on overseas. Because I believe our health care system is in crisis, does NOT mean I support this bill. Because I support our war against Jihad, does NOT mean I support our war in Afghanistan... I could go on.

I'm ALL about practical.

excon

Hello again, Steve:


You don't think throwing your trash into the air is good, but I don't know what you propose to DO about it... All I know is what you DON'T want to do about it. You should excuse me if, in the absence of a right wing proposal, I question whether you really DO think throwing trash into the air is bad..


excon

By "trash" are you referring to CO2? If so, do you know the biological fact is that we exhale this and that plants use this in photosynthesis?

Are you wanting to reduce the gas, co2, that plant life depends on?

It isn't just "right wingers" that debate AGW:

Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review - Taking Liberties - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml)


BTW

Does the fact that the EPA now can control more of our lives not alarm your libertarian sensibilities?

Historic EPA Finding: Greenhouse Gases Harm Humans - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/07/ap/politics/main5924078.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody)



G&P

By "trash" are you referring to CO2? If so, do you know the biological fact is that we exhale this and that plants use this in photosynthesis?Hello again, in:

Are you saying that because we exhale CO2, burning stuff that causes MORE CO2 to be released must be OK?? I think that IS what you're saying. That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

excon

Hello again, in:

Are you saying that because we exhale CO2, burning stuff that causes MORE CO2 to be released must be ok???? I think that IS what you're saying. That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

excon

I think one of the more ridiculous things I have heard EX IS THAT CO2 IS TRASH

Have you not considered that there is a symbiotic relationship between humans and plants? Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2, plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. That CO2 is produced when plant material in any form is burnt is a natural process associated with the very oxygen that plants breath out, it is a natural process, not TRASH but a cycle, now the trick is not to burn too much plant material and we could stop by taking some positive steps to prevent forest destruction, removal of big agriculture, big oil and big energy which it seems might have the desirable effect of removing some very large countries and very large corporations from the equation.

What you are really saying you know is that your nation, as one of the largest emitters, is TRASH

I think one of the more ridiculous things I have heard EX IS THAT CO2 IS TRASHHello clete:

You guys will go to ANY lengths to keep your heads in the sand... You don't like that I call CO2 trash, so you pretend that burning stuff and creating MORE of it, no matter what you want to call it, is a good thing... You even point out the times in our past when CO2 was rampant, and everybody was doing swell. It seems as though you think it's cool that we return to those times... The only problem with those times, is the ocean was just a tad higher.. That's OK with me, cause I live on a hill. But, the areas where MOST of the people in the world live will be devastated.

Or do you think all that wonderful CO2 is just doing nothing?

Let me ask you this, since you're so keen on words... Water isn't poison. It isn't trash. In fact, it's GOOD. Consequently (using your logic), it couldn't hurt you, unless, of course, you breathed it.

excon

Hello clete:

You guys will go to ANY lengths to keep your heads in the sand... You don't like that I call CO2 trash, so you pretend that burning stuff and creating MORE of it, no matter what you want to call it, is a good thing... You even point out the times in our past when CO2 was rampant, and everybody was doing swell. It seems as though you think it's cool that we return to those times... The only problem with those times, is the ocean was just a tad higher.. That's ok with me, cause I live on a hill. But, the areas where MOST of the people in the world live will be devastated.

Or do you think all that wonderful CO2 is just doing nothing?

Lemme ask you this, since you're so keen on words... Water isn't poison. It isn't trash. In fact, it's GOOD. Consequently (using your logic), it couldn't hurt you, unless, of course, you breathed it.

excon

You want to talk about me having my head in the sand but in reality it is you who hide from the truth. The truth is, EX, it is a cycle and we are all part of the cycle and if the water is a little higher and a few beachfront properties are demolished, well the people are only there as a matter of convenience anyway, they don't have an inalienable right to that land. So from your words you want water declared trash too, along with CO2 so someone can prevent rising water levels, more boondoggling building dykes no doubt.. CO2 is doing what CO2 does and if left alone it will promote plant growth which by coincidence will make more oxygen. In the process there will be more deserts, there will anyway because stupid humans cut down the trees. I haven't heard you say anything about stopping deforestation. Your business as usual arguments don't wash EX. Did I say we should burn more fossil fuels, no I didn't, nor did I say we should stop eating even though less agriculture would apparently be a good thing on many levels, but what we can do is be realistic about the problems we face and correctly identify the issues rather than panicking as we are doing now.

Issue: Climate is changing.
Issue: Oceans are rising
Issue: Glaciers are melting
Issue: Inequality in food distribution
Issue: Stupidity in high places

What I see in all these is a consequence, displacement of populations with only two apparent solutions acceptance of migration or population reduction.

if the water is a little higher and a few beachfront properties are demolished, well the people are only there as a matter of convenience anyway, they don't have an inalienable right to that land. Hello again, clete:

If it were only a few fat cat beachfront properties, we wouldn't be having this conversation.. But, in fact, it's MOST of the world..

And, I agree with you. They have no inalienable right to the land... But, IF we COULD save their way of life, and at the same time turn our economy around, why wouldn't we? Plus, as a byproduct, we'd be starving our enemies of the money they need to make war on us... For that reason ALONE, we should do it. No?

If we COULD do all that, why, on earth, wouldn't we?

excon

But, IF we COULD save their way of life, and at the same time turn our economy around, why wouldn't we? Plus, as a byproduct, we'd be starving our enemies of the money they need to make war on us... For that reason ALONE, we should do it. No?

If

That is a very big IF Ex a very very big If. You see that's what I meant in another thread when I said do goodin'. I think that you know as well as I do that the two are incompatible objectives just wishfull thinking. Who are those enemies you would be starving Ex, the North Koreans, the Iranians? They have more than enough money. Your own people are likely to be severally affected and you can't raise enough interest to get on with it.

Personally I'm just as happy to say that it you think global warming through CO2 emissions is reality I have a very nice bridge, just slightly used and well above the water...

Hello again, in:

Are you saying that because we exhale CO2, burning stuff that causes MORE CO2 to be released must be OK?? I think that IS what you're saying. That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Excon


Ex


Burning more stuff? What do you mean? Be specific please.

Coal is used to provide electricity, gas is burned for transportation, even farting is used to relieve pressure ;) So there is a PURPOSE.
The strawman of "burning stuff" is easy to see through. Do you personally, since you believe in AGW, walk or bicycle 100 % of the time? Are a vegetarian? Don't use any source of electricity derived from coal? Can someone like Gore claim this? Is the Amish lifestyle what the Global warming believers wanting us to live like?

Odd how nuclear power is not even on the table at Copenhagen.





Tensions Increase as Poor Nations Stage a Protest - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126079318461090419.html)

...

One possibility is a very general agreement in which developed countries promise to try to reduce their collective emissions by some amount and to provide a pot of money to help pay for a cleanup in the developing world...

At the heart of the disputes in Copenhagen are sharp disagreements over money....

The European Union has pledged a total of €7.2 billion ($10.52 billion) between next year and 2012 to jump-start efforts to curb emissions in developing countries. Officials from developing countries have called that offer inadequate.

"We need to see developed nations give us a plan of what [financial] transfers will come in five years, 10 years and how much over the years ahead, and we aren't seeing that," said Mamadou Honadia, who is part of the negotiating team for Burkina Faso.

A Nigerian delegation official said the EU offer of short-term funding was "pathetic


Climate Drama Climax Looks Elusive in Copenhagen - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=9258074)


Agreeing on how much rich countries should pay for poor nations' clean energy technology and for seawalls, irrigation and other projects to counter a changing climate.
...

"I think the United States needs to come up with $2.5 or $3 billion to put on the table for an immediate jump start," reporters were told last week by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat sponsoring the first legislation capping U.S. emissions
...

Recognizing an obligation by the rich to undo the climate damage they've done,





This is not about real science. Otherwise it would be a scientific exposition on what technoloy, what emerging research, can advance a truly more efficient use of energy resources. There would be no politicians, no mandates, no demands or expectations for money. This should be about the free exchange of knowledge. Instead, it is about the agenda of using fear to extort money.


Why doesn't Kerry use the fortune he married into [ that she married into ] to personally make a difference, why doesn't Gore? Why don't they lead by example?




G&P

Yesterday, tom reported on armed UN security forces shutting down a journalist trying to ask questions about Climategate. The same guy was shut down when trying to quiz The Goracle (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/15/gore-refuses-climategate-questions-un-official-disconnects-mic).


Not only did the former Vice President completely refuse to answer questions about his blatant misrepresentations of the age of the most recent e-mail message obtained from Britain's CRU, a U.N. security official actually disconnected McAleer's microphone to make sure any answers would be unrecorded.

AP science hack Seth Borenstein participated in the CRU email exchanges and just happened to be among the AP's fact checkers. The UN is suppressing questions by force. What are they afraid of and does it not bother you this is happening - and the media is not reporting it - just as with Climategate itself?

Ban Ki-Moon says Climategate is "posturing" ;and wants the delegates at Copenhagen to get serious about creating a one world government ...."seal the deal".
BBC News - Ban Ki-moon tells Copenhagen summit to 'seal a deal' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8414798.stm)

Seal The Deal! (http://www.sealthedeal2009.org/)

Ban Ki-Moon says Climategate is "posturing" ;and wants the delegates at Copenhagen to get serious about creating a one world government ...."seal the deal".
BBC News - Ban Ki-moon tells Copenhagen summit to 'seal a deal' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8414798.stm)

Seal The Deal! (http://www.sealthedeal2009.org/)
At no point in that article does he talk about creating "one world government". Can you point out where he says that?

I don't know if Ban Ki-Moon has come right out and said so but his predecessor certainly has. I've previously posted the link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kofi-annan/saving-ourselves-fromours_b_385358.html) to where he said a climate change agreement "must lay the basis for a global regime."

where he said"must lay the basis for a global regime."Hello again, Steve:

You Righty's seem surprised that our adversaries have weird viewpoints...

What's surprising to ME, though, is your belief that, BECAUSE they're weird, you don't think we should talk to them - I guess about ANYTHING.

Or what, Steve? What is the POINT of your post Steve? We KNOW they're weird. I want to know what you propose to DO about it?? Is it possible for you guy's to have ANYTHING to contribute here, other than NO?

excon

Let me turn it around on you, do they have anything to offer besides this bulls*t?

Let me turn it around on you, do they have anything to offer besides this bulls*t?Hello again, Steve:

Let me teach you a bit about negotiation.. You start high...

excon

You Righty's seem surprised that our adversaries have weird viewpoints...


Ex,Glad you agree the UN qualifies as one of our adversaries. Let's deal with them by cutting off their funding and turning Turtle Bay into condos.


At no point in that article does he talk about creating "one world government". Can you point out where he says that?
NK ;Nov. 11 of this year Ban went to the US Senate and demanded the Senate take the necessary action;and deliver "as soon as possible" ,a "legally binding" commitment to "25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
John F. Kerry Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ,who invited Ban to speak that day called him "Your Excellency."

Annex I, Article 38 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) states: “The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism[the ability to levy taxes].”...

[financial mechanism being the ability to levy taxes]
The proposed treaty continues...

... The government will be ruled by the COP [Conference of the Parties] with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf

World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified .I know what Ban proposes so I don't need it specified in every article about him that I quote.

Thanks tom,
At least you admitted in so many words that the article you linked to contains no such words. Extreme hyperbole is what you specialize in.

Well I have to applaud your leader Stephen Harper for resisting the bs in Copenhagen.

Climategate is still growing (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/) in spite of the lack of media coverage and the AP's conclusions that the science wasn't faked. The Russians are claiming CRU cherry picked their data, preferring to use incomplete data and overemphasizing urban weather stations over stations in rural areas and at higher elevations, particularly playing fast and loose with Siberia.


Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

The gang in Copenhagen claim “it is in Soviet Union that the CRU, NOAA, NASA show the greatest warming.” No wonder, when the data ignores 40% of Russian territory and highlights urban stations over complete data sets from rural areas.

As Christopher Horner put it (http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/16/climategate-just-got-much-much-bigger/), "The reason this cherry-picking is relevant — as is the apparent similar gamesmanship being played with other countries examined in recent days including China and New Zealand — because our NOAA compiles the global dataset and the rest work from it. So when CRU claimed that it “lost” its raw data, what they’re saying is the claim to have lost which stations they chose from NOAA’s compilation, making it impossible for those who wish to check it to discern how they got the answer they did."

Science at its best, and definitely no agenda...

Been a while so time for a Climategate update (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece). The IPCC is only off by hundreds of years on when Himalayan glaciers will melt off. Which by the way, a number of those glaciers haven't heard the news about AGW (http://www.ihatethemedia.com/12-more-glaciers-that-havent-heard-the-news-about-global-warming).

The 'science' was actually based on "speculation" by one unknown Indian scientist which made into a news article in a scientific journal. The World Wildlife Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, used the article as the basis for one of its reports and the IPCC picked it up and used it in their Nobel winning report.

They've also fed us a load of crap on AGW induced disappearing Amazon rainforests (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/).

So where's the science?

The former Tata exec who heads up the IPCC ,"Dr." Pachauri ,has a major conflict of interest in all of this... much like the Goracle. An international conglomerate with ties to Pachauri through Tata stands to make up to $1 billion in carbon credits by closing down a steel plant in England (net loss of 1,700 jobs) .The plant is the Cora Redcar steel plant .The company has 7.5 million European Union surplus carbon allowances, given to the company free by the EU.

Pachauri who shared the Nobel Prize with the Goracle for the garbage in the IPCC report like the lies about the Himalayan glaciers and the Amazon is under fire for the conflict of interests .

Also ,the scientist who originally made the glacier claim is working for a company in India for which Pachauri is director-general.[ The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)] The glacier claim helped TERI win a share of a $500,000 grant , along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.

So;as in the case of the Goracle; one of the major movers advancing the so- called settled science(the President used that line of pablum last night in SOTU) also has a vested interest in the outcome of the debate .

It's funny how the state run media can't make any of these connections. In fact, WaPo just ran a story on how the harsh winter we're having is proof of AGW (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800041.html). The report is by the National Wildlife Federation which I'm sure has no dog in this hunt.

Warmer lakes such as in the Great Lakes region is prompting these storms allegedly. Well, the Gulf never freezes and it's always been the main source of our precipitation. Warm gulf air meets cold northern air and bam, a 5 day weekend - thanks to AGW :)

The WaPo article also cites 2 reasons Americans are more skeptical now, the recession and Cap and Tax. I think if they had done their jobs and covered Climategate Americans would be even more skeptical. By the way, British authorities have said the University of East Anglia did break the law (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece) on FOIA requests, but it's too late to do anything about it.

This just keeps getting better...


The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html).

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

I have to give kudos to the UK's Telegraph for staying on top of the story since Climategate. When will the rest of the media catch on?

This just keeps getting better...



I have to give kudos to the UK's Telegraph for staying on top of the story since Climategate. When will the rest of the media catch on?

You have to understand that one of the worlds leading scientists on climate change comes from around the UK and has a proven track record for his science. This one man has been going against the norm with proven facts and timetables of prediction. Hes about the only one telling the truth. He is the one that related change to sun spot activity and his work has been a shining star against all the " climate changing crap slingers". The earth has always had a natural cycle and so has the sun. Its more about money then anything else and its about time the rest of the world wakes up and sees it for what it is. A ponsey scheme of the highest order. Wait till crap and trade hits us.

Wait till crap and trade hits us.

We don't won't to wait, "crap and trade" as you put it or "the tax on everything" as our own politicians term it is unhelpful, and unless the allowable emissions are small will have no impact. What is generally recognised here is that even at best these schemes target only 30% of emissions and so will fail to achieve their objective, particularly as the largest emitters are not committed to targeted reductions.

There are good reasons for getting away from the carbon fuel cycle and we should not use climate change as the excuse

We should do it because it's the right thing to do. And technology is catching up faster and faster. Carbon fuels are finite. The best thing to happen would be to release everything that is known and let it run free until an idea can be settled upon and proven. Sure sometimes technology needs a push but in this case it doesn't need to be held back with restrictions either. And adding junk to fuel being used isn't solving anything. Ethynol is a joke to sell more fuel then before.

It occures to me that Punxsutawney Phil has better success at prediction than the AGW scientists . At least he doesn't make it up .

If it gets any "warmer" here I'm going to have to buy a snow blower and a snowmobile to get around in Virginia. Due to all the snow we are getting due to all the Global "Warming".

Global tempratures in decline the last Decade does not Equal Warming... thats Cooling.

Nothing is constant... and it never has been. Things get warmer, things get cooler... its called "Cycles".

Grapes once grew in Greenland... Been a VERY long time since that happened, like since the Vikings inhabited the place.


But then... what leftist ever let the facts get in the way of their agenda?

It's getting pretty deep for CRU's Phil Jones (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese), for obstructing FOIA requests and mysterious Chinese weather stations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud).

And in the alternative energy success story of the week, Minnesota's newly installed wind turbines won't work - it's too cold (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/15181/Newly_installed_wind_turbines_idled_by_Minnesotas_ winter.html).