Open Thread - The Day Before Thanksgiving
The previous post was about a situation that is familiar to us here at TTF, and I would like to see the comments section there reflect the knowledge and opinions of our community. I see though that some people would like to talk about the President's popularity ratings and how global warming is a hoax, etc. I am going to delete irrelevant comments on that thread, and let's use this one to talk about current events.
posted by JimK at 11:16 AM
53 Comments:
Jim, you ruin a rollicking good blog that doesn't shy away from controversy and let's a thousand flowers bloom despite whether it advances your own view or not.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
btw, substitute "run" for "ruin" and you get my original intent on that last comment
pack on a lot of pounds tomorrow, kids!
Thank you for clearing that up, Anon -- I've been ruining this blog for five years, and never got a comment quite like that one!
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.
JimK
Andrea- not anon
Tomorrow we go to Portland to have Thanksgiving with our nephew's family- less than 2 weeks after his wife, our niece, died. On Saturday, it is the bar mitzvah of their son.
With my mom's death and the death of my sister's father-in-law and so tragically, our niece, in one week , right now, it is hard to be thankful. I hope in joining with family and friends this week and with the rituals of my faith, I will find that with time, I can be thankful and hopeful again.
Andrea,
I am very sorry to hear of your family’s tragic losses. May you find strength and solace in their company this holiday.
Peace and hugs,
Cynthia
I am so sorry for your sorrows, Andrea, and hope the family gathering for the bar mitzvah will be restorative for you and your loved ones.
With love
While I have many things to be thankful for this season, including Bill 23-07, I must say that I’m also thankful to have met (or at least read the writings of) some wonderful people along the way to its passage, including Jim, Christine, Andrea, Aunt Bea, Dana, and Diogenes.
I’d love to write more, but I’m running late to go help serve turkey and trimmings at a local church.
Don’t stuff yourselves folks,
Cynthia
Jim.
Movie you should watch.
CAlled the "great global warming swindle".
points out that
1) temperature change exactly correlates with solar activity (sun spots) over the past 400 years, not CO2
2) ice cores from which you can measure CO2 content and temperature history, show CO2 lagging temperature rise/fall by a couple hundred years, not preceding it...
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html
Have you seen this ?
I dare you to enlighten yourself...
Happy Thanksgiving.
Okay, this presentation is only about 20 minutes long...
http://www.discovery.org/v/30
and this one is a short paper you can read.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
and here is an ancient map showing that antartica was not always full of ice :
http://www.ednews.org/articles/ancient-map-disproves-global-warming.html
Anonymous: “Jim.
I dare you to enlighten yourself…
Okay, this presentation is only about 20 minutes long...
http://www.discovery.org/v/30”
Exqueese me, I baking powder. The Discovery Institute?
This is a group that pretends that the BELIEF in an intelligent designer, is equal to the FACTS of science, and therefore they should be taught side by side. Better known as “teach the controversy.” Nothing wrong with that, unless it’s a false controversy, which ID is in comparison with biology.
It’s a common tactic of the religious right, make an unfounded assertion, find a religionist with a doctorate to promote it, and then claim it’s the “other side” of the issue.
In order for Intelligent Design to be science, it would have to prove the consciousness of this “designer” through physical experiments, which it doesn’t and can’t. Ergo, not science.
Point being, if you believe in proven-to-be-non-credible sources, then you’re the one who should “enlighten yourself.” Might I suggest Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, which can be watched online. And if that doesn’t suit your fancy, there’s always Google.
The Discovery Institute video you link to above is by one Dr. Noah Robinson. The same Noah Robinson who is associated with the second link you provide from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) :
“and this one is a short paper you can read.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm”
Oism.org, is a group that leads to links to The Robinson Curriculum, which then links to a page called RobinsonUsers4Christ , which states as it’s description:
“This group is for Bible and Trinity-believing, God-fearing, "Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else" Christian families using or investigating the Robinson Curriculum.”
There may be scientific arguments for Global Warming as a myth, but you’re going to have to take religious motivation out of the mix if you want to be taken seriously. You’re also going to have to speak for the moral issues, such as the known health risks associated with the use of carbon based fuel, and about how our reliance on Mid-East oil is anything but injurious to our National Security. Not to mention, do you really want to take the chance?
It’s like someone having 17 electrical cords plugged into the same socket with all kinds of multi-prong adaptors, and then warning them how dangerous that is, and then having them say, 'but I see no evidence of the house burning down, therefore the danger is a myth'---AND THEN CONTINUING TO PLUG MORE CORDS INTO THE OUTLET.
The house may never burn down, but other house fires strongly suggest---if not prove---that electrical cords, improperly used, can and do cause electrical sparks, resulting in an increased risk of fire.
Again, a false controversy. Evidence vs. unfounded accusations of myth.
could someone call the funny farm and let them know that Improv has broken into the computer room again?
Thanks Emproph. We value facts over spin here at Vigilance, all of us except Anon of course.
Here are some facts about the success of cap and trade from Governor O'Malley:
As the debate over energy independence, climate change, and "green jobs" heats up this summer, Congress and the American public should take note one of the most significant accomplishments related to climate change to date and some of the lessons we've learned. In September 2008, 10 northeastern states, including Maryland, launched the United States's first greenhouse gas "cap and trade system"—and it is working.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative requires carbon-producing power plants to purchase one allowance for each ton of carbon they emit. Each state auctions a share of allowances quarterly. The goal is reduced carbon emissions. How is carbon reduced? In two ways: First, the number of allowances decreases over time, so by 2018 we collectively reduce carbon from these power plants—a major source of greenhouse gases—by 10 percent. Second, proceeds from the sale of these allowances are plowed back into consumer benefits: energy efficiency programs, renewable energy, technology development, rate relief, and other programs that benefit energy consumers and create "green jobs."
The result? Energy conservation and development of alternative energy is being funded at historically high levels—a commitment by this country that is long overdue. These include projects to weatherize low-income homes, hire and train energy auditors, deploy combined heat and power and district heating and cooling systems, subsidize energy efficiency improvement programs for small businesses, and educate contractors about energy efficiency and other initiatives.
Green jobs are clearly a key part of our future: The Pew Charitable Trust reported in June that the number of jobs in America's emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007. In Maryland, we have set a goal of creating at least 100,000 green jobs by 2015.
The No. 1 goal of this voluntary effort between Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont has always been to show that a market based cap and trade system can work. How do we know its working? Utilities that need allowances have robustly bid in the four auctions of allowances to date. A healthy secondary market for allowances has emerged. This all points to the markets' recognition that this is a viable program with a foregone conclusion—America must reduce its carbon emissions. To date, $366.5 million in RGGI proceeds—earned in less than one year—have been generated for clean energy, energy conservation, and rate relief...
Some of us are working to reduce the amount of carbon emissions we pollute our environment with every year while others are pretending it doesn't matter.
did either of you bother to even listen to the presentation or glance at the paper ?
there are just curious little facts in there like :
1) the ice core record shows that the temperature has been much warmer on earth over the past 3000 years ... especially about 1000 AD than it is right now. that right now the temperature is pretty average in comparison with the past 3000 years.
2) ancient maps show that antartica used to be ice free.
3) the ice core record also shows that the CO2 rise and fall lags the temperature changes by 800 years.
4) all the ice core records have produced virtually identical temperature records.
5) by the way, it is the coldest year in a decade, but CO2 production has not gone down.
6) the temperature record, though it doesn't correlate with CO2 rise/fall, however does directly correlates with solar activity (sun spots) for the past 400 years. Makes sense.
if you find problems with these arguments (which actually don't seem to be linked to who is making the argument, they would seem like well, facts that could be proved or disproved...) feel free to debate them.
I didn't realize that Maryland had implemented cap and trade. that is interesting Bea, thanks for that tidbit. No wonder the energy rates are so much more expensive. I personally have not turned the heat on yet. Because when I do, the price tag is $350-$400 a month. We have been making fires instead.
actually, inane-B, most of the facts you've been touting were produced by people in correspondence with the fraudsters at East Anglia
we're on to them, even if you're still going on faith in these priests of science, so wise they sometimes have jigger the facts to keep the ignorant in line
"There may be scientific arguments for Global Warming as a myth, but you’re going to have to take religious motivation out of the mix if you want to be taken seriously."
seriously by who?
you
don't make me laugh
there is no war between science and religion, improv
that's materialist propaganda
most of the significant scientific discoveries of history were made by believers seeking to find the Creator's fingerprints
the scientific method was created by a monk doing just that
having said that, truth is there hasn't been much of anybody connecting the global warming except humanists using their favorite straw man for all the world's troubles
"You’re also going to have to speak for the moral issues, such as the known health risks associated with the use of carbon based fuel,"
a completely different issue from the global warning issue that climate scientists have been lying about
"and about how our reliance on Mid-East oil is anything but injurious to our National Security."
I agree that this is good reason to reduce foreign oil consumption. Irrelevant to our discussion, however.
"Not to mention, do you really want to take the chance?"
Sounds like a religious argument to me.
Face it, improv, your view is not based on facts.
"As the debate over energy independence, climate change, and "green jobs" heats up this summer, Congress and the American public should take note one of the most significant accomplishments related to climate change to date and some of the lessons we've learned."
Did you know that the guy who spoke this malarkey is going to be replaced by Bob Ehrlich in the very next election?
It's true.
one strategic mistake of the gay advocacy movement has been to insult minority voters
here's one of the insultees:
"All too often, white liberal classmates at the University of Virginia would ask, "Shouldn't blacks, more than any other group, support gay rights?"
I never understood my classmates' need to align the historical struggles of blacks with those of homosexuals and then push their quadratic equation of oppression on me. Was not one point of Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man," a classic text for college seminars, that blacks deserve an existence free from an assigned role? That they should not be pawns in any social movement? And even if they hadn't read the book, wasn't it clear that stereotypical assumptions based on race are regressive?
Hearing that from my white peers was one thing -- they and I often viewed race through different lenses, with mine being one shade darker than rose. But last month, one of our greatest civil rights leaders also sang the same cacophonous tune in an attempt to peg African Americans' morals and opinions to our socio-historical identities.
"Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality," Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, declared at the National Equality March in Washington.
To be clear, Bond has used this line several times, and when he says "equality," he isn't talking about the right to vote, the right to eat at a public restaurant, the right to attend an integrated school or the right to a fair trial. He is talking about the right to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
With all due respect, which Bond certainly deserves, this black person doesn't agree. And neither do two-thirds of black Protestants, according to an Oct. 9 Pew Research Center poll. Echoing President Lyndon Johnson's words at the signing of the Voting Rights Act, Bond said, gay marriage "must come; it is right that it should come. And when it has, you will find that a burden has been lifted from your shoulders."
He is right about that last point. If gay marriage is legalized, as it will be in the District this year barring congressional interference, blacks who have a moral aversion to same-sex marriage will no longer be tethered to expectations that don't bind any other racial or ethnic group.
Perhaps Bond fails to realize that he is unfairly requiring another form of "two-ness" among African Americans. Already, being both an American and black is difficult, as W.E.B. DuBois wrote. But so is being an African American and a Christian. Asking those 66 percent of black Protestants to look at religion through the veil of race is not the place even of Martin Luther King Jr.'s comrade.
Plus, the "black guilt" tactic doesn't work. If gay marriage were put to a popular vote in the District (where 55 percent of residents are African American) and failed, blacks would again take the brunt of criticism from gay rights activists. Yet no one is talking about blacks' "understanding" since same-sex marriage was voted down this month in Maine, because no one is even sure whether black people live there.
Maine is the 31st state in which a majority of voters have chosen to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. There aren't enough black people in America to hold responsible for all of those outcomes -- we're only 12.8 percent of the population."
"The refrain will eventually have to change to pinpoint white evangelicals, 77 percent of whom oppose same-sex marriage. And here is the crux of the problem, the point at which we can't deny the separate and unequal treatment of blacks: What race-based fire can activists put under white Americans who refuse a new definition of marriage? None.
At best, the message to black Americans is one of skewed motivation: You were once treated as secondclass citizens. You should feel flattered by the two movements' similarities and compelled to join the fight. At worst, the message is insulting. In a recent column on same-sex marriage and those who would play the race card, the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby summed up the linkage as: "For if opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing civil rights, then voters who backed Proposition 8 are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963."
I'm sorry, Julian. I wasn't there with you in 1963 to fight, but I still can't be your George Wallace today."
so specifically which facts are you debating ?
that 2009 has been one of the coolest in a decade is easily verifiable on the NOAA website, though this site has graphs :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/07/october-2009-3rd-coldest-for-us-in-115-years-what-about-the-upcoming-winter/
and shows that the CO2 has been steadily rising.
So, why ?
Why would the temperature be falling while CO2 is rising ?
actually, hasn't the temperature been dropping since around 2002...
okay, so perhaps something else is overpowering the CO2 (which we know is causing global warming... or do we ?).
What else ?
seriously, what else ?
If the CO2 is going steadily up (which it is, and by the way that is really good for plants...they grow faster).... shouldn't the temperature being going up with it ?
but it's not, so.....
I don't think you can say that all the scientists who don't want their names on the IPCC papers are all of a sudden not scientists anymore (some of them have threatened to sue the IPCC to have their names removed from papers they did not agree with).
Google Paul Reiter.... or check out this article. So they were valid scientists to have their names on IPCC papers until they disagreed ?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/23errors.html
How about climategate ?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Can you explain why folks are deleting emails or trying to push scientists off peer review who disagree ...
It's hard to keep pushing global warming I guess when it HAS BEEN GETTING COLDER ALMOST 10 YEARS....
Simple, AGW is a multi-billion dollar industry. No problem, no money.. thus there had better be a problem.
And Bea, you do realize that you exhale CO2 with every breath... you do realize that right ?
You all also know that one of the co-founders of Greenpeace quit when they suggested banning all chlorine (hey, it is just part of the periodic table, but whatever !).
Again, would welcome a debate of the facts.
Why don't we start with ...
HELLO IT HAS BEEN GETTING COLDER FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS BUT CO2 production has been increasing !
Start with justifying that.
Anon, you seem to think that your opinion after having read wattsupwiththat.com and other Internet sites, is more correct than the opinions of individuals who have PhDs in the subject and publish papers in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.
What are the chances of that? Or maybe you do have some qualifications to debate issues in the field of climate science -- please tell us what those qualifications are.
Merle
Merle.
I do know how to read a graph.
Do you ?
If someone tells me that one thing is causing another, I would expect to see that on a graph....wouldn't you ?
Ie, CO2 is rising thus I would expect to see temperature rising...if CO2 causes temperature to rise.
there are lots of climate scientists who do not agree either...
check out this petition :
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
says 31,000 scientists signed it.
so you are going to assert that :
1) the facts are too complicated for us mere mortals to debate.
2) only peer reviewed scientists can debate it.
and BY THE WAY :
Climate gate exposed that the scientists were trying to get any scientist who disagreed kicked off the peer review committee !
so, how's that again ?
"And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Anon, fewer than a third of those "scientists" have PhD's -- in other words, they are not scientists. Of the nine-thousand-something who do have PhD's there is no saying what field their doctorates are in. I have a PhD, but like most PhD's I know nothing about the climate science paradigm. Unlike you, I am educated enough to know that I am unqualified to judge research in a field that I do not specialize in.
You are in no position to criticize an editor's decision about who to use for peer review, and you are in no position to critique scientific data from a field that you know nothing about.
It comes down to this: it will cost American businesses a lot of money if they have to clean up their emissions. They have incentive to discredit any scientific theory that will cost them money. Working-class suckers like you work against your own self-interest by supporting wealthy capitalists whose greed is boundless, and who are replacing workers like you with cheaper foreigners while they destroy the planet we call home. You, a certifiable moron, believe you are qualified to evaluate research by experts with many years of postgraduate education, based on corporate propaganda posted on shady web sites by business and political groups.
Merle
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
merle.
Heard of climate gate ?
This was a group of scientists deciding to bann other scientists (all specialists in the field).
These scientists were deleting emails which show that they were trying to figure out how to suppress data (such as the medivial warm period) that they did agree with the trends they were trying to prove.
Google "climate gate". Have you not heard of this ?
I will always believe that I am capable of picking up and learning any subject I am interested in learning about.
Actually, I think that is distinctively the quality that keeps one from being a "moron".
Nice that you resort to insults when you don't have a logical rebuttal... but of course that is to be expected from the left. When they can't debate on a factual basis, they simply start slinging insults. So true to style Merle, kudos !
Is there any climate skeptic ... say Patrick Michaels, that you believe qualifies as a scientist ...
though I am not sure we can trust ANY OF THEM after climate gate !
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2009/nov/28/lets-get-whole-truth-on-global-warming/
SAN ANGELO, Texas — Could it be true that some scientists, who support the theory that humans cause global warming, have tried to intimidate and even blacklist scientists with opposing views?
The Wall Street Journal and other news organizations reported recently that e-mails from prominent climate scientists were leaked and posted publicly on the Internet. The e-mails, which were obtained from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, revealed what appears to be strong ethical questions about the conduct of some scientists who have been trying to “shout down” scientists with opposing views.
The e-mails provide questions about the conduct of pro-global-warming scientists, especially since the Earth’s climate has cooled 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 10 years, and that governments across the globe are debating implementation of expensive systems that will change the economies of the world.
One such system, a cap-and-trade scheme passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, will impose a new, $2.6-trillion tax on consumers in the U.S.
The CRU admitted earlier this year that it had discarded surface temperature data that have been the basis for several international climate studies which claim that the Earth’s temperature is warming.
CRU Director Phil Jones and Pennsylvania State University Professor Michael Mann in one e-mail appear to conspire to prevent opposing research from being published by an academic journal. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann wrote.
Jones replied: “I will be e-mailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Jones also e-mailed Mann that skeptics’ research was not wanted and we “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
The WSJ reported that scientists ridiculed John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, for asking that a report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group at the United Nations, have dissenting views published along with concurring views. Christy’s concern centers on Congress’s attempt to implement legislation that will have far-reaching impact yet the theory “has not been completely scientifically tested.”
In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote about Patrick Michaels, a climate scientists and Cato Institute senior fellow in Washington, D.C., “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the (expletive) out of him. Very tempted. I’ll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.) in any way that I can.”
Fred Smith, president of the CEI, said the e-mails show “the systemic stonewalling that skeptics of global warming alarmism have faced for years and confirms our suspicion that the case for alarmism is based on fraud. This is exactly the kind of scientific manipulation that CEI has been fighting for over a decade.”
The WSJ stated in an editorial on Nov. 24: “However, we do now have hundreds of e-mails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this on surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.”
Alex Mills is president of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. Contact him at
Yes, I am perfectly familiar with that attempt by corporate interests to interpret pirated emails in a way that benefits them. Sorry, but it is not nearly the controversy you wish it was, private communications among researchers discussing their work, their peers, their methods -- it happens in every field, not only science but art, politics, finance, everywhere.
You are not intelligent enough or well educated enough to understand what any of these emails really mean, and I'm not stupid enough to pay any attention to your interpretation.
Merle
"You are in no position to criticize an editor's decision about who to use for peer review,"
The mystical view of "peer review" is a canard advanced by psuedo-intellectual liberals. The problems with it have always been obvious and they now have been demonstrated plainly by the climategate revelations.
Peer review does not validate any data but is an examination of the reasoning and method. Even then, it is only as good as the reviewers, the selection of which is only as good as the editor who selects them. For the thousands and thousands of scientific journals that exist, all the researchers, all the reviewers, all the editors are fallible humans.
It guarantees nothing and when there is a politically correct position, as global warming is, an extra grain of salt is necessary.
"and you are in no position to critique scientific data from a field that you know nothing about"
All thinking persons should strive to understand, all reputable persons should strive to explain.
Truth is, climate research is a field in infancy, without a reliable practical record.
It's track record rivals Keynesian economics for ineptitude.
The current situation, a significant drop in temperatures for a significant period, unexplained by their models, says it all.
"It comes down to this: it will cost American businesses a lot of money if they have to clean up their emissions."
It will cost us all a lot. We should apply the same scepticism we apply to any encyclopedia salesman.
"They have incentive to discredit any scientific theory that will cost them money."
The East Anglia gang and their worldwide followers have their own suspect incentive.
"Working-class suckers like you work against your own self-interest by supporting wealthy capitalists whose greed is boundless, and who are replacing workers like you with cheaper foreigners while they destroy the planet we call home. You, a certifiable moron, believe you are qualified to evaluate research by experts with many years of postgraduate education, based on corporate propaganda posted on shady web sites by business and political groups."
The world's worst economic disasters are actually in communist countries, which doesn't fit well with your corporate straw man. Your view is ignorant.
Merle, you're not intelligent enough or well educated enough to understand what any of these emails really mean, and we're not stupid enough to pay any attention to your interpretation.
With your unconditional faith in scientists, regardless of evidence to the contrary, you have violated the foundation of science, scepticism and made scientists an object of faith.
Beware the enviro-socialist complex!
Okay, Anon, thanks for proving to us that science doesn't work.
Merle
Hey Merle -
how about this scientist ... (per a climate gate email)
Other global warming advocates also privately acknowledge what they won’t concede publicly, that temperature changes haven’t been consistent with their models. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and prominent man-made global warming advocate, wrote in an e-mail: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
and there's more :
Other emails refer to efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in scientific journals. Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, told The Wall Street Journal: "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."
The New York Times argues: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here." -- This from the same news organization that regularly publishes classified government documents! Yet, these e-mails were covered by England's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released when they were requested. Hiding data, destroying information, and doctoring their results raise real questions about many American academics at universities such as Pennsylvania State University, University of Arizona, and University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/
Anon, scientists talk to each other in email about all kinds of things, just like everybody else. This isn't communication for public consumption, they are dreaming and trying to figure out how to make their research better, and it is private communication. When they publish in scientific journals the writing is reviewed by experts in the field, and the result is the expansion of knowledge.
Morons like you can quote anything out of context and think you understand what's going on. You're too stupid to understand the science, your opinion doesn't matter to anybody. Stick with used car sales or whatever it is you do, and let the scientists conduct their science.
Or do you think "the people" should vote on scientific research, too?
Merle
"When they publish in scientific journals the writing is reviewed by experts in the field, and the result is the expansion of knowledge."
what you don't get is that reviewing the writing doesn't validate the data behind the writing
in this case, the data was purposely manipulated
it doesn't take an expert to know that certain scientists predicted that increased carbon emissions would increase global temperatures and this hasn't happened
it has happened many times in history that those who eventually turn out to be right are attacked by the scientific establishment
age-old story that morons like Merle are not aware of
"and you are in no position to critique scientific data from a field that you know nothing about"
The East Anglia gang critiqued their own research by deciding to falsify it to prove their point.
"When they publish in scientific journals the writing is reviewed by experts in the field,"
Surely, you're not so stupid that you don't know that experts can and do disagree. If you want to publish a paper, you can easily select the expert you want.
There is incentive for these editors to do this when the scientific establishment is making a concerted evidence to attack publications that don't support the status quo on this issue.
One of your many mistakes is to assume that only businessmen have incentive to falsify research.
"Morons like you can quote anything out of context and think you understand what's going on."
Actually, experts are the one talking in the media about this not random anonymous bloggers.
I know you desperately want to hold on to this theory but it turns out you were fooled again.
Merle's the kind of guy who wouldn't ask for a second opinion if the doctor told him he needed a brain transplant
I will always believe that I am capable of picking up and learning any subject I am interested in learning about.
If you believe it, does that mean it's true?
Why would the temperature be falling while CO2 is rising ?
actually, hasn't the temperature been dropping since around 2002...
Why? Because as any moron who has studied temperature and CO2 fluctuations would know that there are many periods of a few years where temperature may actually fall, but when you view the temperature data since the Industrial Revolution or before, the trend becomes clear, as this graph of Global Land Temperature Index clearly demonstrates, and this one
1900-2000 Temperature Change for Three Latitudes and this one too 800,000 Years of Temperature and CO2 Records
The better question than "hasn't the temperature been dropping since around 2002" is "why do global warming deniers only ever want to look at a few years of data rather than the whole picture?"
Ignoring data that doesn't fit your "belief" is not proper use of the scientific method.
"If you believe it, does that mean it's true?"
no, it doesn't
that's why human global warming is not a fact
it hasn't proven true
"Why? Because as any moron who has studied temperature and CO2 fluctuations would know that there are many periods of a few years where temperature may actually fall, but when you view the temperature data since the Industrial Revolution or before, the trend becomes clear,"
first of all, let's note that inane-B doesn't agree with Merle
she believes she's "qualified to evaluate research by experts with many years of postgraduate education"
"many periods", of which some are more than a "few years", is evidence that climate scientists don't understand enough to make predictions which we will base a major restructuring of our economy on
so inane-B's response to why?
is
shhhhh
it happens
very scientific
"Ignoring data that doesn't fit your "belief" is not proper use of the scientific method."
Well, it's become clear that researchers at East Anglia and around the world were not only doing that but hiding the evidence so others couldn't make the same choice to ignore the data
btw, it's freezing out there today
btw, it's freezing out there today
Today in DC the high is expected to be 62 degrees. Brrrrrr!
Average high temperature for Washington DC on November 29 = 52 degrees
Anon, you seem to think that science would be better if it were more democratic. You're wrong. You don't understand how it works, obviously. Sometimes, I know it's hard to believe but it is true, sometimes there are people who know more about something than you do.
Merle
Black Friday: Republicans want to rename it claiming, “It’s not all about Obama.”
— Bill Williams
Bea.
Look again at this graph you provided...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
graphs like this one were made from the ice core record.
The scale is 100's of thousands of years...
Note the red line is temp, the blue line is CO2. The blue line LAGS the red line, doesn't proceed it...
that is because the ocean is an enormous repository of CO2, and when the water heats up it releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
See the high point on the graph about 1000 years ago ? It is not as hot as it was 1000 years ago. That is what they call the medevial warm period. This screws up all the models for warming, apparently.
other graphs take the industrial revolution and put the CO2 rise on this graph... as opposed to just putting a dot on the graph. That shows that the slopes don't match.
Here is another fascinating article, shows that the IPCC conspired to leave out the MVP (medivial warm period) because it did not fit their graphs :
http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/
http://climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/
Lost part of the link.
"But scores of scientific papers show the medieval warm period was real, global and up the 3C warmer than now. There were no glaciers in the tropical Andes, Viking farms in Greenland and little ice at the North Pole when a Chinese naval squadron sailed round the Arctic in 1421."
That paper was written in 2006 by an anonymous UK blogger who goes by the name "William Shepherd." And since publication, one person has commented on it -- and linked to his own London-tour website.
But scores of scientific papers show...
What scientific papers? There's no reference section to this paper and no reference to a single scientific paper that agrees with his assertion. Why doesn't "William Shepherd" name or link to just one of these papers?
Hmmmm. Maybe if "William Shepherd" announces an angel brought him green plates with info about this middle ages period, he could scare up more believers...
Bea.
Here is a site that is trying to take your side....which does acknowledge the MWP.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/medieval-warm-period
Notice something about this graph which I believe COMPLETELY kills their credibility ?
they left OUT from 2000-2009.
It has cooled .7 C in the past decade.
Why don't you think they show this ?
I have to go rake, will be a couple of hours before I can reply, but why don't you think this site (which does appear to be current and pro-global warming...)... put the most current temperature data on their graph ?
Note, if they did, I would bet that it is colder now that the MWP.
I have no idea why ossfoundation.us puts anything up on their website and do not speak for them. If you have a question for this website you chose to link to, you should ask them. This discussion you linked to seems to center on the fact that some of the graphs plot "regional temperature" not "global temperature."
they left OUT from 2000-2009.
It has cooled .7 C in the past decade.
The third graph at the bottom of the ossfoundation page you linked to does not plot average temperatures, but average temperature **anomalies** instead. You can brush up on temperature anomalies here. You might also want to read this related page about how the middle graph was made. It copied an older graph but changed the scale on the Y-axis and more.
Your ossfoundation reports:
But Beck did not stop at simply using this outdated curve, he modified it as highlighted in green in Figure 2. First, he added a wrong temperature scale – the tick marks in the old IPCC report represent 1 ºC, so Beck’s claimed range of 5 ºC exaggerates the past temperature variations by more than a factor of three. Second, the original curve only goes up to the 1970’s. Since then, Northern Hemisphere temperatures have increased by about 0.6 ºC and those in central England even more – so whatever you take this curve for, if it were continued to present, the current temperature would be above the Medieval level, as in the proper reconstructions available today. As this would destroy his message, Beck applied another fakery: he extended the curve flat up to the year 2000, thereby denying the measured warming since the 1970s. With this trick, his curve looks as if it was warmer in Medieval times than now.
When approached directly about these issues, Beck published a modified curve on a website. He changed the temperature range from 5 ºC to 4.5 ºC – but he shortened the arrow as well, so this was just cosmetics. He also added instrumental temperatures for the 20th Century at the end – but with his wrong temperature scale, they are completely out of proportion. (In fact his version suggests temperatures have warmed by 2 ºC since 1900, more than twice of what is actually observed!)
inane-B is really getting desperate now
"Anon, you seem to think that science would be better if it were more democratic. You're wrong."
Well, I would be if I thought that. I think the evidence for global warming has been falsified not because most people have voted for it but because of evidence recently revealed.
If we were to vote on it, right now I think most people think human activity has caused global warming because of an intense PR campaign by warmists.
I do think what action we take and the weighing of costs and benefits should be determined by democratic activity. We seek correct information from scientists to make these citizenship decisions but the global warmists have conspired to falsify information and have violated our trust.
"You don't understand how it works, obviously."
Oh, I think I do.
"Sometimes, I know it's hard to believe but it is true, sometimes there are people who know more about something than you do."
I'm quite aware of that.
What you don't understand is that superior knowledge doesn't necessarily equate with honesty. The scientists in this field have committed fraud.
Further, the study of the climate is not yet a very exact science. In recent years, scientists in this field have tried to convince people that the field has made more progress than it has.
Forty years ago, these people were telling us that we were entering an ice age.
They were wrong.
Less than a decade ago, they were predicting numerous intense annual hurricanes in the North Atlantic.
They were wrong.
At the turn of the millenium, they were predicting steadily increasing global temperatures.
They were wrong.
Every day, across the globe, they tried to predict the weather.
They're wrong half the time.
The most famous meteorologist in our country began his career playing Ronald McDonald on TV advertisements.
Looks like the guys at East Anglia and their co-conspirators worldwide decided to go back to their roots and make clowns of the whole field.
One has to ask why opposition to the theories of climate change, evolution, equality for lgbt people and immigrants, social programs, evolution, etc. and such are all connected in the conservative umbrella. I don't see the connection.
climate change, evolution and sexuality are the three main areas where the scientific hierarachy has abandoned scepticism and sought to repress any studies that contradict the status quo
Ben Stein outed the evolution crowd in his documentary, Expelled
the activities of climate change gang has been exposed by last week's climategate scandal
the shoe is yet to be dropped on the sexuality conspiracy but it will
remember when the psychologist who helped removed homosexuality from the APA DSM dared to publish a study that found homosexual preferences can be changed?
he was savaged mercilessly by gay agenda forces
this is no such thing as non-sceptical scientific studies in that field
they know what they want to find out before they start
and they don't dare risk the ire of the gay agenda forces
The infamous Ben Stein...now there's an expert on climatic changes and evolution! What a dumbo!!
"Anonymous" troll...you keep good company.
"Anonymous"....be on the lookout; never go anywhere unaccompanied. Let your mommy know where you are at all times. The "gay agenda forces" are out to get you! They want your body....
"The infamous Ben Stein...now there's an expert on climatic changes and evolution! What a dumbo!!"
a common liberal conceit is that everyone who opposes their agenda is "infamous" and everyone who supports their agenda is an "expert"
if you want to see a real dumbo, check out the parts of the film where Stein interviews Richard Dawkins
"The "gay agenda forces" are out to get you!"
another common liberal conceit is that anyone who notices their activity is delusional unless they support it
remember when the psychologist who helped removed homosexuality from the APA DSM dared to publish a study that found homosexual preferences can be changed?
he was savaged mercilessly by gay agenda forces
Anon's got that exactly wrong, as usual.
Dr. Spitzer was not pleased with anti-gay forces misuse of his study. Let's try some facts, shall we? Here we can watch and hear Dr. Spitzer himself talking about his discomfort of anti-gay forces misstating his study's results.
He says "...although change is possible and does occur, it is probably quite rare, and of course they don't want to mention that....I feel, therefore, quite uncomfortable with their use of the study..."
Such weak "retorts", "Anonymous"...really - you are capable of such more interesting and uproarious, though disgusting, bile than "common liberal conceit" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
Beware!! The "gay agenda forces" are still out there, looking for you, so that they can ravish you!
"Dr. Spitzer was not pleased with anti-gay forces misuse of his study. Let's try some facts, shall we? Here we can watch and hear Dr. Spitzer himself talking about his discomfort of anti-gay forces misstating his study's results.
He says "...although change is possible and does occur, it is probably quite rare, and of course they don't want to mention that....I feel, therefore, quite uncomfortable with their use of the study...""
this is quite irrelevant to the initial of lunatic fringe gay advocates to the study
they were out with torches and pitchforks
"Such weak "retorts", "Anonymous"...really - you are capable of such more interesting and uproarious,"
see, this is what I try to tell you guys
there are people who read this blog just to see my "interesting and uproarious" comments
Finish the quote, "Anonymous": "...though disgusting bile".
Post a Comment
<< Home