[paraclete]

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?

[tomder55]

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 .

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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:

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[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

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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:

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.

[excon]

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

[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

[speechlesstx]

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...

[speechlesstx]

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:

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" 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.

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.

[Catsmine]

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).

[speechlesstx]

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.

[TUT317]

Just on that issue.

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