[excon]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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:

"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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

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?

[tomder55]

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.

[paraclete]

[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

[frangipanis]

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?

[frangipanis]

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?

[excon]

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

[inthebox]

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

[frangipanis]

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.

[paraclete]

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?

[frangipanis]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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]

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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
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