[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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 and the ice between Canada and SW Greenland was at its 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$$.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[speechlesstx]

Willis Eschenbach has been looking over the data (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):

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."

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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]

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.

[inthebox]

"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

[frangipanis]

Climate Change: Evidence

Department of Climate Change - Science - facts and fiction - Think Change

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

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 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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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 ?

[excon]

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