How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Walter]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Liberal Phraseology: "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change."[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]You mean - "The theory of man-made global climate change", or "The theory of mankind's interference in the Earth's natural temperature fluctuations". [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The operative word being "Theory", because regardless of what non-scientists like Al Gore say, the debate isn't over. There is no consensus. The temperature has been changing since the beginning of time[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Liberal Phraseology: "Greenhouse Gasses".[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]You mean - "Carbon Dioxide - the essential ingredient for all plant life"[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Where are the tree huggers when you need them?[/FONT]

American Thinker: Re-booting the debate

 

[Avro]

Hey Walt? How about responding to Tonnington.

No links?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[TenPenny]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Liberal Phraseology: "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change."[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]You mean - "The theory of man-made global climate change", or "The theory of mankind's interference in the Earth's natural temperature fluctuations". [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The operative word being "Theory", because regardless of what non-scientists like Al Gore say, the debate isn't over. There is no consensus. The temperature has been changing since the beginning of time[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Liberal Phraseology: "Greenhouse Gasses".[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]You mean - "Carbon Dioxide - the essential ingredient for all plant life"[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Where are the tree huggers when you need them?[/FONT]

American Thinker: Re-booting the debate

Have you ever posted anything that isn't a cut and paste? Do you have any thoughts of your own, or are you a spew-bot?

 

[Walter]

Have you ever posted anything that isn't a cut and paste? Do you have any thoughts of your own, or are you a spew-bot?

Me not word together put good. Other do gooder my head thinks.

 

[Avro]

Me not word together put good. Other do gooder my head thinks.

In others words.........duh.

 

[Walter]

November 30, 2009
UN Climate expert: 'What? Me worry?'

Rick Moran

[FONT=times new roman,times]This is pretty incredible. For cluelessness, I have to give it a 9.5. And if its deliberate ignorance, let's go all the way and give it a perfect "10."[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the UN had this to say about Climategate, according to the left wing Guardian's James Randerson:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.[/FONT] [FONT=times new roman,times]Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"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.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman,times]The guy really doesn't get it, does he. The whole point of Mann and Jones' efforts were to keep papers from being peer reviewed IN THE FIRST PLACE! So of course there were no "peer reviewed" papers that were left out due to skepticism because there weren't any skeptic papers that anyone offered to include to begin with.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Several instances of putting pressure on journals to turn down papers that disagreed with the CRU scientist's conclusions are staring this guy in the face and he either doesn't realize the significance of the emails, or has deliberately ignored them to create his own comfortable little global warming reality. Not only that, clear interference in the process was also evident as the CRU frauds got editors of two journals fired for publishing papers that questioned their work.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The IPCC chairman's sublime ignorance is surreal in the face of the evidence. Expect more of this incredible disconnect at the Copenhagen conference next week.[/FONT]

 

[Tonington]

No, Pachuri gets it alright. Mann and Jones can't stop a paper from being peer reviewed, unless they are the editor assigned to the paper during the review process for whatever journal the investigation is attempting to publish in. The IPCC selects papers that are already peer reviewed. They can attempt to get papers out of the synthesis report. There's nothing wrong with that.

Funny enough, the inclusion of sub-standard papers, and the conservative nature of the IPCC review process is why the latest IPCC findings are underestimating the rate of change.

 

[AnnaG]

[FONT=times new roman,times]You mean - "The theory of man-made global climate change", or "The theory of mankind's interference in the Earth's natural temperature fluctuations". [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The operative word being "Theory", because regardless of what non-scientists like Al Gore say, the debate isn't over. There is no consensus. The temperature has been changing since the beginning of time[/FONT]

Perhaps a review of what the word "theory" means in the scientific world would clarify things for you.


[FONT=times new roman,times]

You mean

- "Carbon Dioxide - the essential ingredient for all plant life"

[/FONT]

You might want to look up the word "supersaturation" while you are looking up the definition of "theory".

 

[AnnaG]

November 30, 2009
UN Climate expert: 'What? Me worry?'

Rick Moran

[FONT=times new roman,times]This is pretty incredible. For cluelessness, I have to give it a 9.5. And if its deliberate ignorance, let's go all the way and give it a perfect "10."[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the UN had this to say about Climategate, according to the left wing Guardian's James Randerson:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body,[/FONT]​

Peer review is peer review. Most scientists being pressured to say something against their views would balk. There are some that can be bribed, as in any other profession, but most are not stupid. I bet there isn't a scientist around that doesn't know what a "theory" is or what "supersaturation" means.
​

 

[big]

Peer review is peer review. Most scientists being pressured to say something against their views would balk. There are some that can be bribed, as in any other profession, but most are not stupid. I bet there isn't a scientist around that doesn't know what a "theory" is or what "supersaturation" means.
[/indent]

Scientists were once good schoolboys/girls so they know how to deal with peer pressure.

 

[Kreskin]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Liberal Phraseology: "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change."[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]You mean - "The theory of man-made global climate change", or "The theory of mankind's interference in the Earth's natural temperature fluctuations". [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The operative word being "Theory", because regardless of what non-scientists like Al Gore say, the debate isn't over. There is no consensus. The temperature has been changing since the beginning of time[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Liberal Phraseology: "Greenhouse Gasses".[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]You mean - "Carbon Dioxide - the essential ingredient for all plant life"[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Where are the tree huggers when you need them?[/FONT]

American Thinker: Re-booting the debate

Have you got a pollution fetish?

 

[darkbeaver]

What is your degree in, Basket weaving?

Anyone who thinks there is no global warming is either blind or stupid.
Over the last 100 years, the average temperature of the air near the Earth´s surface has risen a little less than 1° Celsius (0.74 ± 0.18°C, or 1.3 ± 0.32° Fahrenheit). Does not seem all that much? It is responsible for the conspicuous increase in storms, floods and raging forest fires we have seen in the last ten years, though, say scientists.

Their data show that an increase of one degree Celsius makes the Earth warmer now than it has been for at least a thousand years. Out of the 20 warmest years on record, 19 have occurred since 1980. The three hottest years ever observed have all occurred in the last ten years.


Since man has pumped seven or eight trillion of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere over the last couple hundred years, it is a good bet that man is responsible.

Sorry Juan but you are completely wrong, luckily you are neither blind or stupid just very religious maybe. St Gore and associates have sold you the golden wabbit.
Climate change is only and always a result of solar invariance, C02 has not to do with anything cept farts and bankers.
It gets hot then it gets cold then it gets hot and then it gets cold again then it gets hot some more and then it dosen,t for a while and then it does. You can fatten the bankers if you like, follow the money, see the world. How are you anyway?:lol:

 

[Tonington]

Ever had someone walk in-between you and a campfire DB? What happens when someone moves between you and the source of radiation?

 

[AnnaG]

Scientists were once good schoolboys/girls so they know how to deal with peer pressure.

You're turning parrot now?

 

[Walter]

December 01, 2009
The hidden truth

Bernie Reeves

[FONT=times new roman,times]Cover-up is the mot du jour every day in the era of air-brushed reality. I am convinced the Tiger Woods episode of Thanksgiving weekend 2009 will be downsized to an "unfortunate incident", whether or not it's true the famous golfer was escaping from an angry wife brandishing a 9-iron. As in the Michael Jordan gambling affair, the media powers will conclude staining Tiger's pristine reputation is bad for black self-esteem and let the incident languish and die.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]This seems to be the case concerning the 1079 emails and 72 documents disclosed by hackers into England's Climate Research Unit housed at East Anglia University. With the Copenhagen Conference on climate change nearly upon us, the fact that the disclosed data prove global warming scientists have been lying about increases in the earth's temperature has not dampened the spirit of UN officials who organized the event. And, as usual, when the loony Left is called on the carpet for lying, they intensify their righteousness and retreat more and more into delusional behavior - with the media panting along to chronicle their soulful samizdat.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Yet the East Anglia event is hardly news. Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg researched the source documents of the environmental movement over ten years ago and discovered there was little reliable research at the genesis of the "science" of ecology. The same research-as-wish-fulfillment antics uncovered in East Anglia were alive and well at the founding of the environmental movement. The conclusion is that the only reliable trend in climate change findings is the bludgeoning of mankind for destroying Mother Earth.[/FONT]

 

[Walter]

December 01, 2009
Why scientists lie -- and what to do about it

By Paul Shlichta


[FONT=times new roman,times]The recent [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]revelations[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] of misrepresentation by CRU scientists about research on climate change should come as no surprise. Scientists, like all human beings, are sometimes tempted to lie or cheat and occasionally they succumb to those temptations. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Actually, scientists don't do too badly. According to a recent [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]analysis of surveys[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] of scientific misconduct:[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, fabrication, falsification, and modification [of data] had been observed, on average, by over 14% of respondents, and other questionable practices [such as "dropping data points based on a gut feeling", and "changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source"] by up to 72%. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]That's probably a better track record than sociologists or economists could muster. I shudder to think what the corresponding percentages would be for politicians or journalists.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]But it's not good enough. Scientists are worthless if their data and reasoning cannot be entirely trusted. They have in effect signed a [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]contract with society[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], pledging honesty and objectivity. When a scientist is caught in a lie, it should rarely, if ever, be forgiven or forgotten. Then why did the scientists at CRU indulge in such reckless, career-shattering antics? [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]To try to understand this, we must consider why and how scientists lie. The Wikipedia article on [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]scientific misconduct[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] is just the tip of a vast ocean of reportage and analysis of the subject. I shall use a simplified anatomy here.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Why do scientists lie? In order of decreasing disingenuousness, the main motives are: [/FONT]

• [FONT=times new roman,times]Profit: Sometimes there's money in it-a lot of money. This may be why, according to [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Fanelli's report[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], "surveys conducted among clinical, medical and pharmacological researchers appeared to yield higher rates of misconduct than surveys in other fields".[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Laziness and ease of perpetration: It's so much easier to just make up data than to perform all those tedious measurements. And in most cases, no one is going to question you about it. [/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Career pressure: This is the most common reason. The data isn't going your way and you may fail to get your thesis accepted, or not get tenure, or miss a promotion, or lose your grant or your job. [/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Pride: Scientists are as hungry for praise and prestige as any other mortals. And no one likes to be forced to admit he was wrong. So, when someone contradicts your earlier work, you may be willing to cut a few corners to defend yourself, or to prevent their paper from being published.[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Ideology: Many feel that if a cause that's worth dying for, it's worth lying for. As we shall consider below, liberal intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this weakness.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Next, let's consider the methodology. Aside from plagiarism (which is not relevant here), scientific lying follows the same [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]three methods of concealment[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] that are used in all scams:[/FONT]

• [FONT=times new roman,times]Lying: the fabrication of nonexistent data or the falsification of data by manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or the data itself.[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Hiding: omitting data that does not fit your conclusion and/or ignoring or suppressing conflicting data from other sources. Another form of hiding is shouting down the opposition by seeking the greatest possible media exposure [2], repeatedly claiming a dubious or nonexistent consensus for your views, or contriving to prevent the opposition from publication in technical journals by malicious refereeing.[/FONT]
• [FONT=times new roman,times]Misdirection: massaging the data with biasing statistical or processing techniques, choosing the model or graphic plot that best suits your conclusion, misinterpretation of data or suppression of alternative interpretations, unfounded assertions or extrapolations, etc. This is a vast field in itself, one in which CRU and their IPCC brethren seem to have broken new ground. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The psychology of these motives and activities may be inexcusable but is nonetheless understandable. More often than not, it begins with self-deception. For, although Polonius' advice to Laertes: [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]"This above all: to thine own self be true, / And it must follow, as the night the day, / Thou canst not then be false to any man " (Hamlet, I, iii) [/FONT]

​

AGW will be found to be the BRE-X of the '00's.

 

[petros]

This seems to be the case concerning the 1079 emails and 72 documents disclosed by hackers into England's Climate Research Unit housed at East Anglia University.

I'm a scientist. Want to read my email? Could you understand my email if you were a hacker or non-scientist?

Would I even email someone 1079 times without speaking in code or hide it in my data about a scam I'm trying to pull unless I wanted a hacker to find it?

Do you have any idea what scientists or businessmen leave on their computers just for this purpose?

Ever think that maybe leaving misinformation laying around is easiest way of hiding the real?

My "work" computer will never see a server and office one is full of **** and useless dribble just for the purpose of being hacked or stolen .

My working computer has info that can make investors big big money or controlling interest of corporations or even nations and like I say it will never see a server even for updates.

What makes you think that anyone at the top who is really pulling this scam off doesn't work their safety in a similar fashion?

 

[big]

You're turning parrot now?

Again, you have an incorrect way to ask a (nonsensical) question.

 

[Walter]

Day Fourteen and Counting
December 04, 2009 08:45 ET

Bozell Defends Networks’ Silence on ClimateGate:
“Maybe They Just Don’t Know”​

Alexandria, VA – 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. How to explain this?

Perhaps it is that ABC, NBC and CBS have not yet heard of the story, despite two weeks of non-stop reporting on and discussion of ClimateGate in a whole host of media outlets.

Perhaps the broadcast networks only trust their fellow liberal press outlets, like the New York Times. Perhaps they don’t realize the Times exhibited journalistic diligence on ClimateGate, with a front page story the day the story broke.

In the event that ABC News, NBC News and CBS News missed the news, the Media Research Center (MRC) is today rushing each of them a copy of the Times story, in the hopes that armed with this new information, they will finally report a story that has been roiling nearly everywhere else for a fortnight.

So as not to offend the networks’ pro-global warming sensibilities, MRC President Brent Bozell is looking to have the stories delivered by bicycle messenger.

Bozell:

“Ignorance is no excuse under the law, but maybe we should stop criticizing and start showing compassion for NBC, ABC and CBS and their neglect of the huge ClimateGate story. We are more than happy to help rectify their knowledge deficit – via a network-friendly source and in an as environmentally-friendly a way as possible.

“We think that once the networks read the story of ClimateGate in their vaunted New York Times, they’ll feel compelled to report it themselves.

“We very much look forward to seeing the fruits of their labor.”
​

 

[big]

Day Fourteen and Counting
December 04, 2009 08:45 ET

Bozell Defends Networks’ Silence on ClimateGate:
“Maybe They Just Don’t Know”​

Alexandria, VA – 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. How to explain this?

Day one is in three days.