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

Quote:

---

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

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 .

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

"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 on conservatives/Republicans in the wake of Climategate:

Quote:

---

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" in a paper he was submitting for publication.

CRU director Phil Jones won't come out and say the world is cooling 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 rather than turn them over.

CRU director Phil Jones says the death of skeptic John Daly was "cheering news."

Another CRU scientist threatens to "beat the crap out of" 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."

Scientist Tom Wigley threatens to kneecap a journal editor 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."

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, "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. 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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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 over Climategate:

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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:

Barbara Boxer has re-branded this scandal, "You call it ClimateGate, I call it Email-Theft-Gate."

Jim Treacher replies, "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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

---

Cancel that:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate

---

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

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. Of course we know how that would turn out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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. 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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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'

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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?

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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 - 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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 obtained as well and it shows the same thing, more manipulation of the data:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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" 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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

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.

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?