PDA

View Full Version : Environment Climate Data Not Faked - AP States


bowener
12-12-2009, 01:10 PM
Here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001) It is long.

From some of the things I have read on this board before, I am certain one of the first things mentioned will be the liberal media.

I am curious, has anyone here, for or against, read all the emails to justify their position?
Review: E-mails show pettiness, not fraud

Climate experts, AP reporters go through 1,000 exchanges


LONDON - E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated <nobr style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; color: darkgreen;" id="itxt_nobr_0_0">Press</nobr> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001#).

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate <nobr style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; color: darkgreen;" id="itxt_nobr_1_0">change</nobr> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001#). However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

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.'"

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.

Million words reviewed

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global <nobr style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; color: darkgreen;" id="itxt_nobr_8_0">warming</nobr> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001#). It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.
The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.

"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa in one e-mail. The center's chief, Phil Jones, e-mailed: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."

When one skeptic kept filing Freedom of Information Act requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."
Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe anybody else did."

The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal. When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)
"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.

In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic wanted — and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."

Contempt for contrarians

The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.
One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.

PAGE 2

in 1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context."When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study that turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum <nobr style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; color: darkgreen;" id="itxt_nobr_1_0">Institute</nobr> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/page/2/#), Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."


The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.



Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change over long periods.
As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.


"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse <nobr style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; color: darkgreen;" id="itxt_nobr_6_0">gases </nobr> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/page/2/#)or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.


'Trick' reference explained

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.
One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."


Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.
The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data that was misleading, Mann explained.


Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.
David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."
But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.

PAGE 3

None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate <nobr style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; color: darkgreen;" id="itxt_nobr_0_0">Change</nobr> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/page/3/#), which some of the scientists helped write.

"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric <nobr style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; color: darkgreen;" id="itxt_nobr_1_0">Administration</nobr> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/page/3/#)scientist.
Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M <nobr style="font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; color: darkgreen;" id="itxt_nobr_2_0">University</nobr> (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/page/3/#), headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.


"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.


Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."


Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling their arguments to answer online arguments — even as they claimed not to care what was being posted online.


"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."


'Good faith,' says one critic

One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.

"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a telephone interview.

McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.

Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.

McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.

He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. "Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."

The skeptics started the name-calling, said Mann, who called McIntyre a "bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.

"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars."

Mr. Kotter
12-12-2009, 01:12 PM
Gosh, if AP says so...I guess that's the end of it.

;)

bowener
12-12-2009, 01:25 PM
Gosh, if AP says so...I guess that's the end of it.

;)

I haven't, but have you read all the emails?

I have wondered since the start of all of this why the hacker released these certain emails. I am guessing these, some of the ones released, were the most controversial, and not just randomly selected.

donkhater
12-12-2009, 01:44 PM
Let's assume, for the moment, that the data wasn't faked. There are two very big questions that go to the point of the validity of the science.

Was the right data collected? What does the data mean?

Both of these questions would be addressed through thourough scientific review which includes comprehensive peer review. It allows for different interpretations of the data, which for something as complex as the earth's climate, is NEVER going to be as cut and dry as the Global Warmers are making it out to be.

The ethics on the way the 'science' has been handled on this topic has been shaky to say the least, criminal to say the most.

Baby Lee
12-12-2009, 01:49 PM
Let's assume, for the moment, that the data wasn't faked. There are two very big questions that go to the point of the validity of the science.

Was the right data collected? What does the data mean?

Both of these questions would be addressed through thourough scientific review which includes comprehensive peer review. It allows for different interpretations of the data, which for something as complex as the earth's climate, is NEVER going to be as cut and dry as the Global Warmers are making it out to be.

The ethics on the way the 'science' has been handled on this topic has been shaky to say the least, criminal to say the most.

No sooner do I post this in another thread, then a more apt one opens up


http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

Calcountry
12-12-2009, 02:00 PM
I am real big on anecdotal evidence. It snowed here where I live for the first time in 34 years.

Game over.

Calcountry
12-12-2009, 02:10 PM
Let's assume, for the moment, that the data wasn't faked. There are two very big questions that go to the point of the validity of the science.

Was the right data collected? What does the data mean?

Both of these questions would be addressed through thourough scientific review which includes comprehensive peer review. It allows for different interpretations of the data, which for something as complex as the earth's climate, is NEVER going to be as cut and dry as the Global Warmers are making it out to be.

The ethics on the way the 'science' has been handled on this topic has been shaky to say the least, criminal to say the most.Besides that, if the Sun ever did decide to take a giant fart, we are all dead anyway.

Calcountry
12-12-2009, 02:11 PM
I haven't, but have you read all the emails?

I have wondered since the start of all of this why the hacker released these certain emails. I am guessing these, some of the ones released, were the most controversial, and not just randomly selected.It is speculated that Russia hacked it.

2nd largest proven oil reserve there in Russia. :hmmm:

Taco John
12-12-2009, 02:27 PM
The state media is going to tell us what the state wants us to hear.

PornChief
12-12-2009, 02:31 PM
whoopee. They sent a few selected emails to 3 hand picked alarmist 'scientists' who, like Al Gore, declared them to be mere piffle. I'm convinced now.

kcfanXIII
12-12-2009, 02:33 PM
AP= Approved Propaganda

headsnap
12-12-2009, 02:48 PM
It took them an awful long time to come up with this attempted debunking...

Garcia Bronco
12-12-2009, 02:57 PM
Let's assume, for the moment, that the data wasn't faked. There are two very big questions that go to the point of the validity of the science.

Was the right data collected? What does the data mean?

Both of these questions would be addressed through thourough scientific review which includes comprehensive peer review. It allows for different interpretations of the data, which for something as complex as the earth's climate, is NEVER going to be as cut and dry as the Global Warmers are making it out to be.

The ethics on the way the 'science' has been handled on this topic has been shaky to say the least, criminal to say the most.

This.

It's not "science" either. It's "research". It's climate research. Physics forexample, is a "science".

mikey23545
12-12-2009, 03:03 PM
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.
The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law.

The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.

He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."



Well good grief, everything is absolutely as I first thought...This AP report says they did try to hide data, they did try to persecute their critics, and they do have discrepancies between their rigged computer models and real-world data, but none of it matters...

Glad the AP cleared that up...

kcfanXIII
12-12-2009, 03:19 PM
This.

It's not "science" either. It's "research". It's climate research. Physics forexample, is a "science".

i feel so dirty agreeing with you, with so much orange in your avitar...

BucEyedPea
12-12-2009, 03:20 PM
The state media is going to tell us what the state wants us to hear.

Yup! The COVER Up begins.

As if false reports don't get put on the newswires.

KCWolfman
12-12-2009, 04:28 PM
Are we talking about the millions of degrees in the center of the earth or the polar ice caps being gone in 4 more years?

KCWolfman
12-12-2009, 04:29 PM
It took them an awful long time to come up with this attempted debunking...

Its almost like watching the 5 stages of acceptance.

irishjayhawk
12-12-2009, 08:52 PM
This forum is officially both in scientific denialism and batshit insane as evidenced by this very thread. Quite the circle jerks you guys have.

morphius
12-12-2009, 10:16 PM
This forum is officially both in scientific denialism and batshit insane as evidenced by this very thread. Quite the circle jerks you guys have.
Well, luckily you'll be able to tell us we were wrong soon as it has already been stated by your side numerous times that we have already passed the point of no return.

Taco John
12-13-2009, 12:18 AM
By now everybody has heard of the "hockey stick" phenomenon.

Take a look at this, which puts it in historical perspective:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DFbUVBYIPlI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DFbUVBYIPlI&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

cdcox
12-13-2009, 12:26 AM
Hey TJ, why does the first graph only go up to 1900? Someone is either hiding 100 years of data or is so bad at representing data that they can't even make a plot. I don't think they are qualified to comment on the issue.

Taco John
12-13-2009, 12:35 AM
This particular AP story just got blown to smithereens:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/aps-seth-borenstein-is-just-too-damn-cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/


The embarassment never ends with this Climate thing. From Al Gore's poetry to maniplated data to "hide the decline" and now the AP's bias on the issue being exposed.

cdcox
12-13-2009, 12:37 AM
You have a post to respond to. Do you think Watts is incompetent or deceitful?

Taco John
12-13-2009, 12:37 AM
Hey TJ, why does the first graph only go up to 1900? Someone is either hiding 100 years of data or is so bad at representing data that they can't even make a plot. I don't think they are qualified to comment on the issue.

The ice core data from Greenland doesn’t go past the year 1900 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/)

cdcox
12-13-2009, 12:43 AM
The ice core data from Greenland doesn’t go past the year 1900 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/)

But we have temperature data that does.

BTW, anthropological warming doesn't even begin in 1850. There wasn't enough extra greenhouse gases in 1850 to contribute to warming. This isn't "hockey stick" data. Deceitful.

Taco John
12-13-2009, 12:44 AM
Go to the link, it's all factored on that page. It's funny how you are here doing the distortion, but calling this decietful though.

cdcox
12-13-2009, 12:50 AM
This reconstruction shows the largest peak occurring right at the year 1000. Go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

which shows MANY reconstruction, NONE of which show the peak at year 1000 as strongly as this particular data. Would you not agree this looks like an outlier compared to every other reconstruction?

cdcox
12-13-2009, 01:19 AM
By all means, let's talk more about ice core data.

Ice core data provides some of the strongest and convincing links between CO2 and global temperatures (see figure below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core). But Watts doesn't mention that. Wattsupwiththat? Would an objective observer mention all the facts around a particular type of data or would he ignore parts of it to make his point better?

Current CO2 levels are around 385 ppm. That isn't in dispute. What can we infer from ice core data about temperatures when atmospheric CO2 is 385 ppm?

PornChief
12-13-2009, 01:23 AM
not wackypedia again.

cdcox
12-13-2009, 01:28 AM
not wackypedia again.

Okay, before I go to the trouble of tracking this down in peer-reviewed scientific literature, would that actually convince you or are you just sending out another seagull?

I'll track it down if you'll be convinced. But if you aren't open to evidence, I'm not going to bother.

What do you say?

Taco John
12-13-2009, 01:39 AM
This reconstruction shows the largest peak occurring right at the year 1000. Go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

which shows MANY reconstruction, NONE of which show the peak at year 1000 as strongly as this particular data. Would you not agree this looks like an outlier compared to every other reconstruction?

If it's your position that (capital letter) NONE of them show the peak at year 1000, then I have to say that you're looking at the noise and not the individual trend lines.

Observe:

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4176/notanoutlier.gif

I think it's a reach to call it an outlier.

PornChief
12-13-2009, 02:27 AM
Okay, before I go to the trouble of tracking this down in peer-reviewed scientific literature, would that actually convince you or are you just sending out another seagull?

I'll track it down if you'll be convinced. But if you aren't open to evidence, I'm not going to bother.

What do you say?

go ahead but it better not be the fudged one that got torn down by McIntyre and actually showed CO2 levels rose after the temps did and that todays temps aint nothing special.

headsnap
12-13-2009, 06:55 AM
this made it on the front page of the Louisville Courier Journal today...

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.


That's not news, it's an editorial! When did they start putting editorials on the front page? Especially written by someone involved in the story... :shake:

Bwana
12-13-2009, 07:17 AM
Spin baby SPIN!

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/precess.gif

HonestChieffan
12-13-2009, 07:28 AM
From what is being said by the statistics folks the dirty laundry is not so much in the emails as it is in the actual modeling process and how they have manipulated the data to skew the results.

penchief
12-13-2009, 07:28 AM
The guardians of greed have a financial stake in bashing science. Is it really any surprise that science is getting sick and tired of being attacked by forces whose only goal is to preserve the status quo?

Politics and greed have turned debate about legitimate science into a three-ring circus. I don't approve of the unethical tactics that these scientists have resorted to. Lowering their ethcial standards to match the unethical tactics of the deniers is not the way to go. But I certainly understand where thier frustration is coming from. I imagine it can get pretty wearisome dealing with well-financed ignorance when it comes to defending the sanctity of science.

That said, the conservative thing to do when the survival of the human race is at stake would be to exercise caution. And the conservative thing to do when it comes to moving forward would be to exercise due diligence in researching the problem and allowing science to guide us. Unfortunately, greed has seen fit to resist any attempts to be certain or even cautious when it comes to further understanding the consequences of human-caused climate change.

The calculated effort to turn this into a politically charged hot potato has neutralized caution and due diligence. Common sense is the casualty in all of this. And greed is the underlying problem.

headsnap
12-13-2009, 07:32 AM
The guardians of greed have a financial stake in bashing science. Is it really any surprise that science is getting sick and tired of being attacked by forces whose only goal is to preserve the status quo?

Al Gore is a Bazillionaire!!!!

and greed is not just $ it is also power... just look to Copenhagen to see the true guardians of greed..

penchief
12-13-2009, 07:35 AM
Al Gore is a Bazillionaire!!!!

and greed is not just $ it is also power... just look to Copenhagen to see the true guardians of greed..

Al Gore invented greenhouse gases? Brilliant!!!!

headsnap
12-13-2009, 07:38 AM
Al Gore invented greenhouse gases? Brilliant!!!!

Al Gore is a profiteering scare monger

Bwana
12-13-2009, 07:44 AM
Al Gore is a profiteering scare monger

Don't forget, he also invented the "interweb!" :D

penchief
12-13-2009, 07:49 AM
Al Gore is a profiteering scare monger

Even if that were true, does it mean that the problem of greenhouse gases does not exist?

As I said, politics and greed have compromised the sanctity of science and corrupted the debate over climate change. It's impossible to approach this problem pragmatically because it has been thoroughly poisoned by political partisanship. Poisoning the waters with partisan politics is by design. It's the best way to cause a stalemate. Even if the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of one side.

headsnap
12-13-2009, 08:08 AM
Even if that were true, does it mean that the problem of greenhouse gases does not exist?

true, but it is a difference of this:

problem

or

problem


that's the debate...

As I said, politics and greed have compromised the sanctity of science and corrupted the debate over climate change. It's impossible to approach this problem pragmatically because it has been thoroughly poisoned by political partisanship. Poisoning the waters with partisan politics is by design. It's the best way to cause a stalemate. Even if the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of one side.

both sides of the argument are doing that, you just have a problem when the Non Believers do it...

Norman Einstein
12-13-2009, 08:14 AM
The state media is going to tell us what the state wants us to hear.

Now we have it! Both Climate Change and 9/11 are inside jobs!

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=135416

RedNeckRaider
12-13-2009, 08:18 AM
Al Gore is a Bazillionaire!!!!

and greed is not just $ it is also power... just look to Copenhagen to see the true guardians of greed..

The sheep did not notice the change in Gore's wealth after he started selling the sheep his bullshit. That shitbag could care less about the subject he just knows there is a boat load of money to be made~

Norman Einstein
12-13-2009, 08:24 AM
Al Gore invented greenhouse gases? Brilliant!!!!

Al Gore is one of a very few people in the world at the moment that would stand to make his billions from selling carbon credits.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

RedNeckRaider
12-13-2009, 08:26 AM
Al Gore is one of a very few people in the world at the moment that would stand to make his billions from selling carbon credits.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Bu...bu...but he is a hero~

Norman Einstein
12-13-2009, 08:27 AM
Bu...bu...but he is a hero~

You might have spell ed that wrong, I thought it was "an asshole".

RedNeckRaider
12-13-2009, 08:33 AM
You might have spell ed that wrong, I thought it was "an asshole".

No I actually misspelled zero~

cdcox
12-13-2009, 08:48 AM
TJ - Your reading comprehension is bad. Everyone acknowledges the medieval warming period. The point is that the reconstruction posted at wattsupwiththat showed the medieval warming period one half a degree warmer than the current period (which they initially hid). In contrast the reconstructions you posted show that the modern period is a half a degree warmer than the medieval warm. Therefore the wattsupwith that reconstruction showed a medieval warming period at least a one full degree warmer than any other reconstruction. Hence my contention that the wattsupwith that reconstruction is an outlier --

This reconstruction shows the largest peak occurring right at the year 1000. Go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

which shows MANY reconstruction, NONE of which show the peak at year 1000 as strongly as this particular data. Would you not agree this looks like an outlier compared to every other reconstruction?

The youtube video is completely misleading. It presents a strawman hockey stick and then proceeds to destroy it. It is a dishonest piece of propaganda.

cdcox
12-13-2009, 08:51 AM
go ahead but it better not be the fudged one that got torn down by McIntyre and actually showed CO2 levels rose after the temps did and that todays temps aint nothing special.

Where did McIntyre or anyone else do this is a peer-reviewed journal?

penchief
12-13-2009, 08:52 AM
You guys are all proving my point. For you this is more about partisan politics, bashing Al Gore, and winning the debate against the evil liberals than it is the actual science.

There is data that gives us good reason for concern. Is anything absolute at this point? Probably not. But certain trends have given us reason enough to proceed with caution. That's all I advocate. What I disapprove of is those who want to throw all caution out the window by claiming that the data is a fraud. Simply for reasons of greed and politics.

headsnap
12-13-2009, 08:55 AM
by claiming that the data is a fraud. Simply for reasons of greed and politics.

how ironic

penchief
12-13-2009, 08:57 AM
how ironic

Ironic that you avoid addressing that aspect. Not all those who advocate caution are alarmists. Some of us are just pragmatists.

Baby Lee
12-13-2009, 09:02 AM
You guys are all proving my point. For you this is more about partisan politics, your hatred of Al Gore, and winning the debate against the evil liberals than it is the actual science.

There is data that gives us good reason for concern. Is anything absolute at this point? Probably not. But certain trends have given us reason enough to proceed with caution. That's all I advocate. What I disapprove of is those who want to throw all caution out the window by claiming that all the data is a fraud. Simply for reasons of greed and politics.

How much of what is on the table would you characterize 'proceeding with caution?'

Restrictions on meat consumption, restrictions of distances food can travel to reach your table, restrictions on the number of children you sire, additional taxation of energy consumption, restrictions on the amount of energy your household items consume [see CA's restrictions on LCD TV power consumption, which seems to me disregards that they're still lower than the consumption of CRT tech], mandating the use to exponentially more expensive weatherizing materials, mandating the installation of exponentially more expensive heating and cooling machines, restrictions on the level of heat or coolness you can have in your home, restrictions on the plys of toilet paper that you wipe with, travel restrictions, mandated work vicinity, abolition of charcoal grills and two stroke motors, I could go on and on for pages.

What specifically, meaning if you use the words; common sense, power quo, reasonable measures, greed, entrenched interests, etc, I will punch you in the nose.

ETA: And sureley you see that the present proposal for cap and trade is nothing but the newest Goldman Sachs vehicle to create another bubble that they can 'administer' to their continued profit. There's your minions of greed raiding the pocketbooks of the middle class.

penchief
12-13-2009, 09:20 AM
How much of what is on the table would you characterize 'proceeding with caution?'

Restrictions on meat consumption, restrictions of distances food can travel to reach your table, restrictions on the number of children you sire, additional taxation of energy consumption, restrictions on the amount of energy your household items consume [see CA's restrictions on LCD TV power consumption, which seems to me disregards that they're still lower than the consumption of CRT tech], mandating the use to exponentially more expensive weatherizing materials, mandating the installation of exponentially more expensive heating and cooling machines, restrictions on the level of heat or coolness you can have in your home, restrictions on the plys of toilet paper that you wipe with, travel restrictions, mandated work vicinity, abolition of charcoal grills and two stroke motors, I could go on and on for pages.

What specifically, meaning if you use the words; common sense, power quo, reasonable measures, greed, entrenched interests, etc, I will punch you in the nose.


I'll start by saying at this point my comments are not meant to address any current proposals. My comments were meant to address the fact that science has been under attack by "entrenched interests" for some time now.

All I'm advocating in my posts is a more pragmatic, less partisan approach to addressing the trends that have been supported by the data (by both sides).

And I'll be supportive of any regulations that prove to be in the public's best interests. Just as I was supportive of earlier environmental regulations that protected the public welfare.

Baby Lee
12-13-2009, 09:34 AM
I'll start by saying at this point my comments are not meant to address any current proposals. My comments were meant to address the fact that science has been under attack by "entrenched interests" for some time now.

All I'm advocating in my posts is a more pragmatic, less partisan approach to addressing the trends that have been supported by the data (by both sides).

And I'll be supportive of any regulations that prove to be in the public's best interests. Just as I was supportive of environmental regulations that protected the public wellfare.

So, everything I posited and then some.

And what you see as 'partisan' is much more than that, and barely that at all, outside of a few yahoos who hate 'this guy' or like 'that guy.'

You are countenancing ceding to the government complete control, everything we do, every breath we take, every move we make [no Police puns] consumes energy. You countenance ceding to government the authority to decide in every facet which of our life's activities are meritorious and which should be abolished for the greater good. Did you think for a moment when you held your child how you had effectively doubled the toll you were taking on the planet.

And on the issue of 'science under attack' I posted an address by Richard Feynman. I'll post it here again for your convenience

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

Read this, read all of it, and think carefully about how cocksure the pronouncements have been from the climate change industry, and how they've striven to finesse the data to prove their conclusions, and how those pronouncements and that surety and the finessing sits with Mr. Feynman's assessment of the duties of a scientist.

Saul Good
12-13-2009, 09:50 AM
What I disapprove of is those who want to throw all caution out the window by claiming that the data is a fraud. Simply for reasons of greed and politics.

The warmers are the ones wanting to throw caution to the wind. I don't seen any of the deniers advocating taking dramatic steps to pollute our environment. Even the most adamant deniers seem to think that conservation and stewardship of the environment are noble goals. They just don't think that it should dominate our lives and our economy.

donkhater
12-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Fact #1: The Earth has been colder than it is currently
Fact #2: The Earth has been warmer than it is currently.

Therefore the theory that man-made greenhouse gas production is the cause for a supposed warming trend is NOT indisputable.

vailpass
12-13-2009, 10:18 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

donkhater
12-13-2009, 10:19 AM
Put another way:

If the earth has been warmer than it currently is pre-industrial revolution (say pre 1900) then I don't see how anyone can say definatively that the cause of any warming trend is due to man.

Saul Good
12-13-2009, 10:21 AM
Put another way:

If the earth has been warmer than it currently is pre-industrial revolution (say pre 1900) then I don't see how anyone can say definatively that the cause of any warming trend is due to man.

Perhaps millions in funding would change your opinion.

donkhater
12-13-2009, 10:23 AM
Perhaps millions in funding would change your opinion.

I'm willing to test that theory.:)

Norman Einstein
12-13-2009, 04:54 PM
You guys are all proving my point. For you this is more about partisan politics, bashing Al Gore, and winning the debate against the evil liberals than it is the actual science.

There is data that gives us good reason for concern. Is anything absolute at this point? Probably not. But certain trends have given us reason enough to proceed with caution. That's all I advocate. What I disapprove of is those who want to throw all caution out the window by claiming that the data is a fraud. Simply for reasons of greed and politics.


Tell us penchief, how does that koolaid taste?

KCWolfman
12-13-2009, 08:51 PM
The guardians of greed have a financial stake in bashing science. Is it really any surprise that science is getting sick and tired of being attacked by forces whose only goal is to preserve the status quo?

Politics and greed have turned debate about legitimate science into a three-ring circus. I don't approve of the unethical tactics that these scientists have resorted to. Lowering their ethcial standards to match the unethical tactics of the deniers is not the way to go. But I certainly understand where thier frustration is coming from. I imagine it can get pretty wearisome dealing with well-financed ignorance when it comes to defending the sanctity of science.

That said, the conservative thing to do when the survival of the human race is at stake would be to exercise caution. And the conservative thing to do when it comes to moving forward would be to exercise due diligence in researching the problem and allowing science to guide us. Unfortunately, greed has seen fit to resist any attempts to be certain or even cautious when it comes to further understanding the consequences of human-caused climate change.

The calculated effort to turn this into a politically charged hot potato has neutralized caution and due diligence. Common sense is the casualty in all of this. And greed is the underlying problem.

That would explain the exponential number of private jets and limousines at the Copenhagen event - They are truly concerned.

KCWolfman
12-13-2009, 08:56 PM
You guys are all proving my point. For you this is more about partisan politics, bashing Al Gore, and winning the debate against the evil liberals than it is the actual science.

There is data that gives us good reason for concern. Is anything absolute at this point? Probably not. But certain trends have given us reason enough to proceed with caution. That's all I advocate. What I disapprove of is those who want to throw all caution out the window by claiming that the data is a fraud. Simply for reasons of greed and politics.

There is a difference between proceeding with caution and taxing the hell out of productive society and maybe even appropriating private land. This isn't about left vs. right - it is about scare tactic control of all of society.

KCWolfman
12-13-2009, 08:58 PM
I'll start by saying at this point my comments are not meant to address any current proposals. My comments were meant to address the fact that science has been under attack by "entrenched interests" for some time now.

.

And SOME science counters by creating scare measures to immorally appropriate funds. Their own version of "entrenched interests". If a threat doesn't exist, then they don't receive funds.

KCWolfman
12-13-2009, 08:59 PM
Perhaps millions in funding would change your opinion.

The single most repworthy post of the week.

Taco John
12-13-2009, 09:05 PM
TJ - Your reading comprehension is bad. Everyone acknowledges the medieval warming period. The point is that the reconstruction posted at wattsupwiththat showed the medieval warming period one half a degree warmer than the current period (which they initially hid). In contrast the reconstructions you posted show that the modern period is a half a degree warmer than the medieval warm. Therefore the wattsupwith that reconstruction showed a medieval warming period at least a one full degree warmer than any other reconstruction. Hence my contention that the wattsupwith that reconstruction is an outlier --



The youtube video is completely misleading. It presents a strawman hockey stick and then proceeds to destroy it. It is a dishonest piece of propaganda.

*yawn*

Half a degree warmer. Everybody pull out their check books. We've got to make this right by the UN.

KCWolfman
12-13-2009, 09:09 PM
*yawn*

Half a degree warmer. Everybody pull out their check books. We've got to make this right by the UN.

Only the nations that actually produce a surplus of goods for the rest of the world need pay.

Garcia Bronco
12-17-2009, 02:03 PM
The guardians of greed have a financial stake in bashing science. Is it really any surprise that science is getting sick and tired of being attacked by forces whose only goal is to preserve the status quo?

Politics and greed have turned debate about legitimate science into a three-ring circus. I don't approve of the unethical tactics that these scientists have resorted to. Lowering their ethcial standards to match the unethical tactics of the deniers is not the way to go. But I certainly understand where thier frustration is coming from. I imagine it can get pretty wearisome dealing with well-financed ignorance when it comes to defending the sanctity of science.

That said, the conservative thing to do when the survival of the human race is at stake would be to exercise caution. And the conservative thing to do when it comes to moving forward would be to exercise due diligence in researching the problem and allowing science to guide us. Unfortunately, greed has seen fit to resist any attempts to be certain or even cautious when it comes to further understanding the consequences of human-caused climate change.

The calculated effort to turn this into a politically charged hot potato has neutralized caution and due diligence. Common sense is the casualty in all of this. And greed is the underlying problem.

Which "Science" would that be?

Baby Lee
12-17-2009, 02:22 PM
Which "Science" would that be?

Good luck getting detail from the Maharishi of Mushmouth.

He's already on record here with 'whatever our [Democrat] overlords decree, whenever they decree it' when asked specifically what he'd submit to in terms of restrictions on freedom.