Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
From Andrew Bolt:
Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:
If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:
It's over.
Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
It's over.
You wish Walt. Taking private emails from a dozen or so scientists out of context doesn't change the radiation measurements, the temperature trends in the stratosphere, nor the realization of predictions made decades ago which have come to pass.
The part about deleting records, I'm not sure what's going on there, but McIntyre's request was actually denied byt the UK Government. It was without merit, the records he asked for were not the proprietorship of those he was asking of, and he got the records anyways (illegally once, and inadvertently years earlier, somehow he wasn't aware of this). They made some hay from the publically available GISS code, but made no publication, and no effort to improve anything at all. They moved on to the next target.
Why do you think these scientists speak ill of him? The normal procedure for scientists when disagreeing is to publish. Emotion and personality disappear in peer reviewed publication. McIntyre rambles on for lines and lines on his blog, insinuates a great deal, and then moves on to the next target. He allows blatant character smears to appear on his blog. He publishes very little.
He then cries foul when the players on the field won't acknowledge him when he refuses to play by the rules.
He reaps what he sows. His sycophantic cheering squad are unphased by reality.
Below is another example of quote mining, that very clearly shows scientific fraud!
~T
When.You wish Walt. Taking private emails from a dozen or so scientists out of context doesn't change the radiation measurements, the temperature trends in the stratosphere, nor the realization of predictions made decades ago which have come to pass.
The part about deleting records, I'm not sure what's going on there, but McIntyre's request was actually denied byt the UK Government. It was without merit, the records he asked for were not the proprietorship of those he was asking of, and he got the records anyways (illegally once, and inadvertently years earlier, somehow he wasn't aware of this). They made some hay from the publically available GISS code, but made no publication, and no effort to improve anything at all. They moved on to the next target.
Why do you think these scientists speak ill of him? The normal procedure for scientists when disagreeing is to publish. Emotion and personality disappear in peer reviewed publication. McIntyre rambles on for lines and lines on his blog, insinuates a great deal, and then moves on to the next target. He allows blatant character smears to appear on his blog. He publishes very little.
He then cries foul when the players on the field won't acknowledge him when he refuses to play by the rules.
He reaps what he sows. His sycophantic cheering squad are unphased by reality.
Below is another example of quote mining, that very clearly shows scientific fraud!
~T
Big deal. Who's to say that hackers from the pro GW side haven't done their own hacking.
All I see this doing is muddying the waters even more than they are now. Stupidity of these partisans is rampant.
All I see this doing is muddying the waters even more than they are now. Stupidity of these partisans is rampant.
It's no different than the 9/11 truthers pointing out things that were said by first responders at Ground Zero, and saying, AHA! See!
One example, one of the more popular quotes is the one which refers to Mann's "trick". His trick is to plot observed surface temperatures with a proxy record. The reason for this, is the proxy he was using, courtesy of another researcher shows divergence after 1960. The proxy at that point is no longer tracking temperature, but instead the tree ring width is primarily a function of the tree age. Divergence is an active area of research in dendroclimatology.
This is why in Mann's last paleo-study, he tested the robustness of his reconstruction by eliminating the tree proxies altogether, and comparing that to the entire ensemble of proxies. The result was no different than that with the trees included. This is in part due to better understanding of the divergence problem in some tree ring series, and in part due to the large number of different proxies in the reconstruction.
But the dumbass septics won't tell you that. Because you can't get that context from the email. You have to read the actual work that these scientists have completed.
Uber lame.
One example, one of the more popular quotes is the one which refers to Mann's "trick". His trick is to plot observed surface temperatures with a proxy record. The reason for this, is the proxy he was using, courtesy of another researcher shows divergence after 1960. The proxy at that point is no longer tracking temperature, but instead the tree ring width is primarily a function of the tree age. Divergence is an active area of research in dendroclimatology.
This is why in Mann's last paleo-study, he tested the robustness of his reconstruction by eliminating the tree proxies altogether, and comparing that to the entire ensemble of proxies. The result was no different than that with the trees included. This is in part due to better understanding of the divergence problem in some tree ring series, and in part due to the large number of different proxies in the reconstruction.
But the dumbass septics won't tell you that. Because you can't get that context from the email. You have to read the actual work that these scientists have completed.
Uber lame.
This only shows once more that human factors (extremism in this particular case) are science's trickiest components.
November 24, 2009
Science frauds may face criminal charges
Christopher Alleva
[FONT=times new roman,times]For some time the main publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science Magazine, has effectively banned any papers that dissent with the global warming orthodoxy. [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Apparently there are some alarm bells ringing over at Science's offices. In a breaking news post, they are contemplating criminal liability for the Scientists involved in this scandal. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Antonio Regalado of the Science Blog writes:[/FONT]
Science frauds may face criminal charges
Christopher Alleva
[FONT=times new roman,times]For some time the main publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science Magazine, has effectively banned any papers that dissent with the global warming orthodoxy. [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Apparently there are some alarm bells ringing over at Science's offices. In a breaking news post, they are contemplating criminal liability for the Scientists involved in this scandal. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Antonio Regalado of the Science Blog writes:[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The University of East Anglia, whose stolen documents caused a furor of excitement among climate skeptics over the weekend, said today that it had called in police to investigate possible criminal activity.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]But university researchers may also find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.'s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The case of the climate hack began last week when an anonymous individual calling himself "FOIA" released hundreds of private emails and documents belonging to East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]In recent years, the university had been subject to a flurry of information requests from bloggers and others skeptical of man-made global warming demanding to see raw data used to calculate temperatures, as well as for scientific correspondence. The university has rejected most of the requests citing various exemptions to the U.K. public disclosure law, which took effect in 2005.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Frankly, in the wake of Bernie Madoff, I would not like to face criminal fraud charges like these. [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]But university researchers may also find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.'s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The case of the climate hack began last week when an anonymous individual calling himself "FOIA" released hundreds of private emails and documents belonging to East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]In recent years, the university had been subject to a flurry of information requests from bloggers and others skeptical of man-made global warming demanding to see raw data used to calculate temperatures, as well as for scientific correspondence. The university has rejected most of the requests citing various exemptions to the U.K. public disclosure law, which took effect in 2005.[/FONT]
The hysteria around all global issues is entirely legitimate precisely on the basis that infringing on common properties (the air quality in the case of AGW) seems less of an offense than infringing of private properties (the scientific data here).
Last edited:
November 27, 2009
Politics and Greenhouse Gases
By John McLaughlin
[FONT=times new roman,times]Advocates and sympathetic politicians claiming that man-made global warming from use of carbon-based energy sources mandates international controls on economically prosperous nations were already worried that their victory is slipping. Now another blow has been struck against the basic "science" used to support their case. Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]have determined[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]To briefly review, the entire argument for immediate political action on carbon-based emissions rests upon three premises, formulated over the last twenty years by scientists affiliated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]1. The planet is experiencing worldwide atmospheric warming, threatening life as we know it.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]2. This warming is unprecedented because average worldwide temperatures for at least a thousand years have shown no significant variation until the last seventy years, which correlates with a thirty-percent increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by industrial activity.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]3. Invoking a "greenhouse effect" model, the IPCC claims that CO2 exhibits a property involving special characteristics of long-wave energy absorption and radiation with altitude (called "radiative forcing") which accelerates near-surface warming and, as the CO2 quantity increases, spells planetary disaster unless reversed.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]In an [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]AT article posted September 27[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], I laid out the case for why the first two premises were flawed, if not outright fraudulent. Now, the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to actually violate basic laws of physics.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper prepared by two [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]German physicists[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC application.[/FONT]
Politics and Greenhouse Gases
By John McLaughlin
[FONT=times new roman,times]Advocates and sympathetic politicians claiming that man-made global warming from use of carbon-based energy sources mandates international controls on economically prosperous nations were already worried that their victory is slipping. Now another blow has been struck against the basic "science" used to support their case. Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]have determined[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]To briefly review, the entire argument for immediate political action on carbon-based emissions rests upon three premises, formulated over the last twenty years by scientists affiliated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]1. The planet is experiencing worldwide atmospheric warming, threatening life as we know it.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]2. This warming is unprecedented because average worldwide temperatures for at least a thousand years have shown no significant variation until the last seventy years, which correlates with a thirty-percent increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by industrial activity.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]3. Invoking a "greenhouse effect" model, the IPCC claims that CO2 exhibits a property involving special characteristics of long-wave energy absorption and radiation with altitude (called "radiative forcing") which accelerates near-surface warming and, as the CO2 quantity increases, spells planetary disaster unless reversed.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]In an [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]AT article posted September 27[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], I laid out the case for why the first two premises were flawed, if not outright fraudulent. Now, the IPCC "consensus" atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to actually violate basic laws of physics.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper prepared by two [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]German physicists[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC application.[/FONT]
If McLaughlin really wants to reveal something big about politics, he just has to say that physics is an ideology, a false consciousness in other words.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/habermas-jrgen-este-0001_0002_0/
The naivety in this video is that it ignores the fact that, with science and technology, the real catastrophe becomes: not been able to feel that we are in a catastrophe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_society
Last edited:
Contrary to the deluded views of the forum right wing, there is universal consensus that global warming is a reality:
Momentum grows for Copenhagen climate deal
Momentum grows for Copenhagen climate deal | Reuters
''
"Each week brings new commitments and pledges -- from industrialized countries, emerging economies and developing countries alike," he added.
"An agreement is within reach ... We must seal a deal in Copenhagen," Ban said. He, Rasmussen and French President Nicloas Sarkozy attended the summit of the 53-nation Commonwealth as special guests to lobby on Friday for international consensus on a climate pact.
Rasmussen said Denmark had received an "overwhelmingly positive" response to its invitation to world leaders to attend the talks next months. "More than 85 heads of state and government have told us they are coming to Copenhagen, and many are still positively considering''
Momentum grows for Copenhagen climate deal
Momentum grows for Copenhagen climate deal | Reuters
''
"Each week brings new commitments and pledges -- from industrialized countries, emerging economies and developing countries alike," he added.
"An agreement is within reach ... We must seal a deal in Copenhagen," Ban said. He, Rasmussen and French President Nicloas Sarkozy attended the summit of the 53-nation Commonwealth as special guests to lobby on Friday for international consensus on a climate pact.
Rasmussen said Denmark had received an "overwhelmingly positive" response to its invitation to world leaders to attend the talks next months. "More than 85 heads of state and government have told us they are coming to Copenhagen, and many are still positively considering''
By definition, a catastrophe cannot be a reality because it overwhelms our senses and reason.