Ask Me Help Desk - Its run out of hot air

I read the same AP article and posted it on the other OP .

Here is what an article sympathetic to the scientists had to say (emphasis and underlines added for illustration)

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.'

You can off the cuff dismiss this all you want ;but unless there is a lot more outrage from scientists against this there will be a loss of the legitimacy that science has been establishing for 500 years.

Science without the full integrity of the scientific method is nothing more than huckester magic and shamanism .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

there will be a loss of the legitimacy that science has been establishing for 500 years.

Hello again, tom:

You are the one, I believe, who brought up Piltdown Man. That WAS made up science - not too long ago either. Science survived. Global warming ISN'T made up.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Don't look like THEY think there are any new "truths", and they actually read every single email.

They also assigned more than twice as many hacks to fact-check Sarah Palin's book. The authors also failed to note that one of them doing the fact checking is a little too cozy with the Climategate group.

Hello climate change deniers:

Here's ANOTHER reason why you righty's should embrace the fix. You're not liking illegal aliens too much, are you? So, when the lower lands around the world begin to flood, where to you think those people are going to go?

excon

I posted earlier on how one of the AP hacks fact checking the CRU emails is a little too cozy with the Climategate gang, now they're covering for The Goracle's claim that the polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years.

Quote:

New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at the U.N. climate conference. This new projection, following several years of dramatic retreat by polar sea ice, suggests that the ice cap may nearly vanish in the summer much sooner than the year 2030, as was forecast by a U.S. government agency eight months ago.

One U.S. government scientist Monday questioned the new prediction as too severe, but other researchers previously have projected a quicker end than 2030 to the Arctic summer ice cap.

"It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this," said former U.S. Vice President Gore, who joined Scandinavian officials and scientists to brief journalists and delegates. It was Gore's first appearance at the two-week conference...

"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.

Asked for comment, one U.S. government scientist questioned what he called this "aggressive" projection.

"It's possible but not likely," said Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. "We're sticking with 2030."

On the other hand, a leading NASA ice scientist, Jay Zwally, said last year that the Arctic could be essentially ice-free within "five to less than 10 years."

The AP failed to mention that the actual scientist Gore used as the source for his proclamation threw him under the bus.

Quote:

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

At least the AP furnished an appropriate image of the clueless Mr. Gore...

http://images.worldnow.com/AP/images/11674992_BG1.jpg

And in a delicious bit of irony, reporters covering Copenhagen, including AP hysteria writer and mouthpiece for Gore and CRU Seth Borenstein, had to wait in line outside for hours in near-freezing temperatures to get in. Borenstein had "never been so grateful " to get a little warmth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello climate change deniers:

Here's ANOTHER reason why you righty's should embrace the fix. You're not liking illegal aliens too much, are you? So, when the lower lands around the world begin to flood, where to you think those people are gonna go?

excon

I expect, ex, they are going to climb that hill you live on and camp next to your place and you, out of the goodness of your heart, are going to feed them. Bless your little cotton sox!

Now let's get real. No amount of stuffing about with the environment and industry is going to fix the problem. If the system is broke, the problem is going to persist for long time, CO2 has a life of thousands of years and the biggest polluters, US, China, India, etc, etc have no intention of changing the way they do business. If, on the other hand, this is a natural process, see what I said above. One interesting little statistic, so you can see how ridiculous this really is. Mankind emits 130% of the Carbon Dioxide emitted by the worlds volcanoes. We are not the only emitter of CO2. We have done a good job of riding the planet of those other emitters of CO2 , trees, but the volcanoes remain. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TURN THEM OFF?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

I expect, ex, they are going to climb that hill you live on and camp next to your place and you, out of the goodness of your heart, are going to feed them. Bless your little cotton sox!

Now let's get real. No amount of of stuffing about with the environment and industry is going to fix the problem. If the system is broke, the problem is going to persist for long time, CO2 has a life of thousands of years and the biggest polluters, US, China, India, etc, etc have no intention of changing the way they do business. If, on the other hand, this is a natural process, see what I said above. One interesting little statistic, so you can see how rediculous this really is. Mankind emits 130% of the Carbon Dioxide emitted by the worlds volcanoes. We are not the only emitter of CO2. We have done a good job of riding the planet of those other emitters of CO2 , trees, but the volcanoes remain. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TURN THEM OFF?

Did you just say that trees emit CO2?

Where did you learn that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

Did you just say that trees emit CO2?

Where did you learn that?

I think it is known that trees both emit oxygen and CO2, They take in CO2 in daylight and emit oxygen and reverse the process at night. They are a balanced system, it is a great shame that humans don't display similar balance

Trees need energy to grow. This energy is released from the food made by photosynthesis in a process of respiration. This process occurs in the mitochondria of the tree's cells 24 hours a day. Some of the food is combined with oxygen and the reaction releases stored energy for growth. Respiration uses between a quarter and a half of the food produced in photosynthesis. Respiration uses oxygen and releases energy, carbon dioxide and water. This is the reverse of the photosynthesis which collects the sun's energy, combines it with carbon dioxide and water and releases oxygen.
Forestry Insights

The last gasp and it is so momentous that we are not even allowed to know what was agreed.'Meaningful' climate deal reached | News.com.auCould Obama be looking for another Nobel Prize. I'll give him one for BS

That's amazing. Last headline I read was the UN officials were asking delegates to stay over time because nothing was reached . Is there any other world leader making such a proclamation ?

Big headline here is

global warming agreement .Obama races home ahead of blizzard.

Hello again, Righty's

You know, every time you allude to the cold weather as evidence that global warming isn't real, all you do is solidify in my mind, your total lack of understanding of the science involved.

But it DOES entertain me.

excon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4...8_snow4_ap.jpg

OK then some real science or shall we say more science fraud.
The Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)in Moscow accused the Hadley Center of deliberately relied on a carefully selected 25% of Russia's weather stations that fit its theory of global warming and ignoring the rest.The Russians say that it overestimated the Russian temperatures by over 1/2 degree C.The conveniently ignored weather stations that account for over 40% of the Russian land surface.

Russia has 12.5% of the worlds land mass so that is a significant swath of the earth to ignore. And which part of Russian was ignored? You guessed it ;Siberia.
You will recall that Siberia was also the place where that smoking trees were found. In 1995, a paper by the CRU asserted the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. It relied on tree ring data from 12 carefully selected trees of 252 cores sampled in Siberia's Yamal Peninsula.A larger sample of 34 tree cores showed no recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. They weren't used. This coolaborates the larger sample from the Russian weather stations that shows no significant increases in temperatures .
You also recall that a single tree ring (known as YAD061) was used to justify the phony Michael Mann hockey stick graph. Mann's graph made the Medieval Warm Period (A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.

It was the phoney Mann graph in the IFCC reports that led to first Kyoto and now the Copenhagen charade.

I keep on citing scientific evidence and you keep repeating the charge that I don't understand the science without citing evidence that I am wrong. I think your understanding is the political talking point you keep going back to ;which can be summed up this way "common sense tells you that we can't keep throwing garbage in the air". That may or may not be true but that is not really a scientific argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I keep on citing scientific evidence and you keep repeating the charge that I don't understand the science without citing evidence that I am wrong. I think your understanding is the political talking point you keep going back to ;which can be summed up this way "common sense tells you that we can't keep throwing garbage in the air". That may or may not be true but that is not really a scientific argument.

Hello again, tom:

I don't argue the science with you because I'm not a scientist. The only thing I DO argue about, is whether the science is believable... You're no different, only you supply some stats you found to bolster your argument. That has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

And, THAT'S what we argue about here - politics...

Because, it's POLITICS that has you believing in ID - not the science... And, as long as you believe ID is science, you have NO credibility with me in these conversations. So, cite all the stats you want. Ain't going to change nothing.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

I don't argue the science with you because I'm not a scientist. The only thing I DO argue about, is whether the science is believable... You're no different, only you supply some stats you found to bolster your argument. That has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

And, THAT'S what we argue about here - politics....

Because, it's POLITICS that has you believing in ID - not the science... And, as long as you believe ID is science, you have NO credibility with me in these conversations. So, site all the stats you want. Ain't gonna change nothing.

excon

Time to stop arguing ex. The conference in Copenhagen vanished in a puff of politicians hot air. We will have to call Obama puff the magic dragon from now on. What a crock, "we will try to limit warming to 2 degrees". That's essentially what he said, "but don't hold us to it". I'm wondering how do you measure this? Where will you take the readings? What hallowed institutions is appointed to harvest the statistics? I expect it will be the UN.they should have at least agreed on that, perhaps they will take their readings on their highest mountains

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Time to stop arguing ex.

Hello again, clete:

As long as YOU confuse politics with science, you give me ample reason to go on.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

As long as YOU confuse politics with science, you give me ample reason to go on.

excon

Ex there was not a vestige of science in Obama's announcement, it was pure politics so the one confused is you.

Climate Change is peusdo science, an if here, a what if there, feed some more statistics into my model and I'll tell you the future. After two weeks talking we are no further ahead. I actually think that the only thing predictable was the outcome

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Ex there was not a vestige of science in Obama's announcement, it was pure politics so the one confused is you.

Hello again, clete:

Copenhagen is politics. Global warming is science. Because the politics is a failure changes NOTHING about the science.

Do I think you're going to misunderstand that too? Yup.

excon