The global-cooling cover-up
Devil's Advocate
up/?feat=home_editorials
EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated
attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone
interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of
data "to hide the decline [in temperature]" and deletion of e-mail
exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support
global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science.
In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their
disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.
The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed
through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly
influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world's
largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models
form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's (IPCC) 2007 report.
Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the
United Nation's IPCC report chapter titled "Detection of Climate Change
and Attribution of Causes," says he "accidentally" deleted some raw
temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU
distributed. If you believe that, you're probably watching too many Al
Gore videos.
Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics
"have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the
file rather than send to anyone."
Other revelations hit at the very core of the global-warming debate. The
leaked e-mails indicate that the people at the CRU can't even figure out
how their aggregate data was put together. CRU activists claimed that
they took individual temperature readings at individual stations and
averaged the information out to produce temperature readings over larger
areas. One of the leaked documents states that their aggregation
procedure "renders the station counts totally meaningless." The benefit:
"So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of
garbage!"
Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using
this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-
warming theocracy's own self-appointed experts, the data they have been
using is simply "garbage."
For global-warming advocates, there is an additional problem: The
aggregated data appear to have been constructed to show an increase in
temperatures. CBS' Declan McCullagh finds that the computer code
contains programmer-written notes addressed to themselves or future
people who will be working with the program. The notes include these
revealing instructions: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for
decline!!" and "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales
never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the
120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding
longer time scales!"
The programmers apparently had to try at least a couple of adjustments
before they could get their aggregated data to show an increase in
temperatures.
Other global-warming advocates privately acknowledge what they won't
concede publicly, that temperature changes haven't been consistent with
their models. Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section
at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a prominent man-
made-global-warming advocate, wrote in one of the discovered e-mails:
"The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can't."
Still other e-mails document how global-warming advocates tried to
silence academic journals and professors who questioned whether there is
significant man-made global warming.
We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather
than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and
intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there
is a problem. Professor Trevor Davies, the school's pro vice chancellor
for research, issued a defensive statement on Tuesday claiming: "The
publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate
science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the
stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU,
and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change
are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and
interpretation."
Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done
in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to
destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results
were calculated should be severely punished.
suds mcduff
> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>
>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>
> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>
----"The Sun, the Sun, bray the science phobic rightards....
Jamir Quay
> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>
>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>
> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>
http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2009/05/11/columns/columns06.prt
Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:25:07 pm PDT
Weather Gems
Cliff Harris
Alaska's Hubbard Glacier is advancing at the rate of seven feet per day!
This past week, I received a literally astounding report from Yakutat,
Alaska's city manager, Skip Ryman, forwarded to me by Kerri Thoreson,
concerning the rapid advancement of the Hubbard Glacier towards Gilbert
Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet)
per day!
http://www.dailytech.com/Glaciers+in+Norway+Growing+Again/article13540.htm
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.
After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports
the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual
magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two
years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir
Elveh�y.
The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow
ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower,
warmer elevations.
The original trend had been fairly rapid decline since the year 2000.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
February 18, 2009
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage
Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification
of analysis updates. Updates are also available via Twitter.
As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant
problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem
arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily
sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that
starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a
slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The
underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000
square miles) by mid-February. Sensor drift, although infrequent, does
occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for
during quality control measures prior to archiving the data. See below
for more details.
We have removed the most recent data and are investigating alternative
data sources that will provide correct results. It is not clear when we
will have data back online, but we are working to resolve the issue as
quickly as possible.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=cda7b596-d5e8-4a50-bf5d-66a42c45ab0c&k=47765
OTTAWA � Canada's highest point � the ice-covered peak of Yukon's
soaring Mount Logan � may be due for an official re-measurement after an
American researcher on a neighbourly flyby took readings that suggest
this country's superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.
The University of Alaska aerial survey, conducted last summer with a
laser altimeter by Fairbanks-based geoscientist Sandy Zirnheld, pegged
Canada's geographic zenith at 5,966 metres. That's seven metres higher
than the official height of 5,959 metres, determined in 1992 after a
celebrated climb to the top by a team of Canadian researchers led by
Mike Schmidt of the Geological Survey of Canada.
Mr. Zirnheld's surprise finding prompted a second pass and the same
result -- 5,966 metres -- raising the possibility that a thickening snow
pack or advances in satellite technology will force an upward revision
to the landmark national statistic.
"Snow and ice accumulation is the most likely explanation," Chris
Larsen, the scientist leading the University of Alaska's research on the
continent's northwest mountain ranges, said.
While acknowledging Canada's on-the-ground measurement in 1992 was
"probably more accurate" than his team's airborne survey, Mr. Larsen
added that "it is very unlikely that the difference of seven metres is
due to a difference in the accuracy of the two surveys."
That leaves increased layering of ice and snow or tectonic uplift as the
probable causes of the mountain's apparent growth, says Mr. Larsen, and
geological pressures "could explain -- at most -- five to 10 millimetres
per year."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378144,00.html
Mysterious California Glaciers Keep Growing Despite Warming
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
June 19, 2008: The Bolam glacier on the northern face of Mt. Shasta.
MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. � Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over
the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's
flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the
continental U.S. that are growing.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/26/mont-blanc-glaciers-refuse-to-shrink
Mont Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink?
Filed under: Climate History, Glaciers/Sea Ice �
If you have an interest in global warming and its effect on mountain
glaciers, you will be thrilled to know that there are over one million
websites on the subject. Even before you get to the first site, you
already know what you will find. Burning fossil fuels increases
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, the Earth is warming,
mountain glaciers are in full retreat all over the planet, delicate
ecosystems are in peril, and humans who rely on the freshwater from
mountain glaciers better get creative fast. Recall that in the Gore
film, a great deal of attention was paid to the diminishing �snows of
Kilimanjaro� � Gore has made hay in Glacier National Park as well
pointing to shrinking glaciers. Retreating mountain glaciers have become
a poster-child of the global warming alarmists � no presentation on the
subject is complete without one.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says in their
recent 2007 Summary for Policymakers �Mountain glaciers and snow cover
have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in
glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.� Someone in
Europe missed the memo on this subject as a recent article has appeared
in the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled �Very high-elevation
Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate
change.� To say the least, we at World Climate Report were interested in
what the authors had to say.
The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and
departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and
glaciology. Before you see the title of the article and immediately
suspect some conspiracy funded by European coal companies, be aware that
the research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l�Univers de
Grenoble (OSUG), the European Programs ALPCLIM and CARBOSOL, and by the
city of Chamonix Mont-Blanc. Given the title of the article, we wonder
if the six scientists will ever be funded again by any European agencies.
ray
suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought it was because they were building factories next to the
glaciers. LOL!
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
Jamir Quay
> In article <hepg5e$s4b$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>>>
>> ----"The Sun, the Sun, bray the science phobic rightards....
>
> I thought it was because they were building factories next to the
> glaciers. LOL!
>
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it
could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a
researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead
author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has
been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to
the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it
would have provided a significant component of the global warming the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over
the past 100 years," he said.
abelard
amusement
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93617main_sun4m.jpg
what about the fall between maxima?
i like that word 'significant'
"In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a
two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2."
ah, a 'trick'
"while ERBS results produced no trend"
ah, another 'trick'....
why isn't the bbc exposing these dastardly cover-ups?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
>Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>
>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>>
>They're not:
>
>http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2009/05/11/columns/columns06.prt
>
>Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:25:07 pm PDT
>
>Weather Gems
>
>Cliff Harris
>Alaska's Hubbard Glacier is advancing at the rate of seven feet per day!
>
>This past week, I received a literally astounding report from Yakutat,
>Alaska's city manager, Skip Ryman, forwarded to me by Kerri Thoreson,
>concerning the rapid advancement of the Hubbard Glacier towards Gilbert
>Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet)
>per day!
you mean it's pouring ice into the sea at an increasing....even an
'astounding'/'astonishing'/'rapid' rate...
well i never...how simply spiffing and exciting...i almost wet meself
can't be bothered to go through the rest of your trash can
>http://www.dailytech.com/Glaciers+in+Norway+Growing+Again/article13540.htm
>
>Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.
>
>After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports
>the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual
>magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two
>years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir
>Elveh�y.
>OTTAWA � Canada's highest point � the ice-covered peak of Yukon's
>soaring Mount Logan � may be due for an official re-measurement after an
>MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. � Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over
>the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's
>flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the
>continental U.S. that are growing.
>
>
>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/26/mont-blanc-glaciers-refuse-to-shrink
>
>Mont Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink?
>Filed under: Climate History, Glaciers/Sea Ice �
>If you have an interest in global warming and its effect on mountain
>glaciers, you will be thrilled to know that there are over one million
>websites on the subject. Even before you get to the first site, you
>already know what you will find. Burning fossil fuels increases
>atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, the Earth is warming,
>mountain glaciers are in full retreat all over the planet, delicate
>ecosystems are in peril, and humans who rely on the freshwater from
>mountain glaciers better get creative fast. Recall that in the Gore
>film, a great deal of attention was paid to the diminishing �snows of
>Kilimanjaro� � Gore has made hay in Glacier National Park as well
>pointing to shrinking glaciers. Retreating mountain glaciers have become
>a poster-child of the global warming alarmists � no presentation on the
>subject is complete without one.
>
>
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says in their
>recent 2007 Summary for Policymakers �Mountain glaciers and snow cover
>have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in
>glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.� Someone in
>Europe missed the memo on this subject as a recent article has appeared
>in the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled �Very high-elevation
>Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate
>change.� To say the least, we at World Climate Report were interested in
>what the authors had to say.
>
>The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and
>departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and
>glaciology. Before you see the title of the article and immediately
>suspect some conspiracy funded by European coal companies, be aware that
>the research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l�Univers de
>Grenoble (OSUG), the European Programs ALPCLIM and CARBOSOL, and by the
>city of Chamonix Mont-Blanc. Given the title of the article, we wonder
>if the six scientists will ever be funded again by any European agencies.
--
Jamir Quay
I like the way you "true believers" have to massage the data to foist
your cause off on the public...
Jamir Quay
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:47:55 -0700, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>>>
>> They're not:
>>
>> http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2009/05/11/columns/columns06.prt
>>
>> Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:25:07 pm PDT
>>
>> Weather Gems
>>
>> Cliff Harris
>> Alaska's Hubbard Glacier is advancing at the rate of seven feet per day!
>>
>> This past week, I received a literally astounding report from Yakutat,
>> Alaska's city manager, Skip Ryman, forwarded to me by Kerri Thoreson,
>> concerning the rapid advancement of the Hubbard Glacier towards Gilbert
>> Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet)
>> per day!
>
> you mean it's pouring ice into the sea at an increasing....even an
> 'astounding'/'astonishing'/'rapid' rate...
> well i never...how simply spiffing and exciting...i almost wet meself
>
> can't be bothered to go through the rest of your trash can
Of course not, as a "true believer" the facts make you rather uncomfortable.
Go change your diaper.
>
>> http://www.dailytech.com/Glaciers+in+Norway+Growing+Again/article13540.htm
>>
>> Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.
>>
>> After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports
>> the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual
>> magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two
>> years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir
>> Elveh�y.
>> OTTAWA � Canada's highest point � the ice-covered peak of Yukon's
>> soaring Mount Logan � may be due for an official re-measurement after an
>> MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. � Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over
>> the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's
>> flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the
>> continental U.S. that are growing.
>>
>>
>> http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/26/mont-blanc-glaciers-refuse-to-shrink
>>
>> Mont Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink?
>> Filed under: Climate History, Glaciers/Sea Ice �
>> If you have an interest in global warming and its effect on mountain
>> glaciers, you will be thrilled to know that there are over one million
>> websites on the subject. Even before you get to the first site, you
>> already know what you will find. Burning fossil fuels increases
>> atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, the Earth is warming,
>> mountain glaciers are in full retreat all over the planet, delicate
>> ecosystems are in peril, and humans who rely on the freshwater from
>> mountain glaciers better get creative fast. Recall that in the Gore
>> film, a great deal of attention was paid to the diminishing �snows of
>> Kilimanjaro� � Gore has made hay in Glacier National Park as well
>> pointing to shrinking glaciers. Retreating mountain glaciers have become
>> a poster-child of the global warming alarmists � no presentation on the
>> subject is complete without one.
>>
>>
>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says in their
>> recent 2007 Summary for Policymakers �Mountain glaciers and snow cover
>> have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in
>> glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.� Someone in
>> Europe missed the memo on this subject as a recent article has appeared
>> in the Journal of Geophysical Research entitled �Very high-elevation
>> Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate
>> change.� To say the least, we at World Climate Report were interested in
>> what the authors had to say.
>>
>> The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and
>> departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and
>> glaciology. Before you see the title of the article and immediately
>> suspect some conspiracy funded by European coal companies, be aware that
>> the research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l�Univers de
abelard
your evasion is again noted
abelard
your evasion is again noted
--
Jamir Quay
planet is again noted.
Jamir Quay
abelard
you don't know what you're posting about...
the system is both the sun and the earth....
not one or the other....
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming_atmospheric_chemistry_physics.php#mercury_venus
just in case you can read
Jamir Quay
Which one supplies the most heat input?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.
These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes
William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.
Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.
There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.
It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.
It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.
Negative feedback
The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.
Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.
Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.
No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.
abelard
gray is a hurricane specialist with a bee in his bonnet...
even his main colleague believes he's lost it!
reposting a bbc 'report' 20 times doesn't improve...or
even reduce it...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
more to the point is you don't even know basics...
thus keep posting stuff you don't understand is pointless
--
Jamir Quay
Oh I'm sorry, meteorology and climatology are actually very closely
related disciplines, you LOSE on the " SHOOT THE MESSENGER" LAME.
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
>
> more to the point is you don't even know basics...
These _ARE_ the basics, sot.
Jamir Quay
>
>> Your unwillingness to admit the sun drives the heat balance on this
>> planet is again noted.
>
> temperatures drive up plant growth which
No sun = no "warmer temperatures" - cope with it.
Jamir Quay
>
>>> the system is both the sun and the earth....
>>>
>>> not one or the other....
>> Which one supplies the most heat input?
>
That's utter hogwash, are you on drugs?
abelard
you're a bullshit artist...and you're not even good at that
Jamir Quay
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon wrote:
>>> In article <herhvr$7ca$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jamir Quay
>>> <s...@00.ter>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your unwillingness to admit the sun drives the heat balance on this
>>>> planet is again noted.
>>> Because it doesn't. What drives the heat balance is carbon dioxide. Warmer
>>> temperatures drive up plant growth which
>> No sun = no "warmer temperatures" - cope with it.
>
>
The reality is no sun, no balance.
Jamir Quay
enjoy.
Devil's Advocate
> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>
>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>
> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>
Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
Weather change cycles - live with it.
The math says that we'd have to shut down all human activity for the next
30 years, all vehicles and electricity, to make a 1 degree difference.
Ridiculous.
Devil's Advocate
You commie useful idiots are the ones making a religion out of this. The
science shows that man isnt causing any weather change. The climate has
always changed in cycles, some 60 years, some thousands of years.
This is all being done as a marxist redistribution of wealth political
ploy, to collapse and globalize the United States.
Dont forget, some of the biggest polluters in the world, India and China,
are not going along with your stupidity.
abelard
<Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>
>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>
>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
mars has vastly more irregular and extreme wobble....
>Weather change cycles - live with it.
>
>The math says that we'd have to shut down all human activity for the next
>30 years, all vehicles and electricity, to make a 1 degree difference.
it 'says' no such thing...
>Ridiculous.
true
Chris X
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:thr4h5t1ss8ojmmqd...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:43:58 -0600, "Devil's Advocate"
> <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>
>>Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>
>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>>
>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>
>>Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
>
> mars has vastly more irregular and extreme wobble....
Fraudelard knows - argue with him further and he'll claim to have *been*
there.
*******************
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
Jamir Quay
> In article <t_KdnS31U_STYYzW...@forethought.net>,
> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>
>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>>>
>> Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
>>
>> Weather change cycles - live with it.
>>
>> The math says that we'd have to shut down all human activity for the next
>> 30 years, all vehicles and electricity, to make a 1 degree difference.
>
>
Don't worry, it'll be replaced with coal-based synfuels and better
battery packs.
Jamir Quay
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:43:58 -0600, "Devil's Advocate"
> <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>
>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>
>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>
>> Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
>
> mars has vastly more irregular and extreme wobble....
See: Chandler wobble.
>> Weather change cycles - live with it.
>>
>> The math says that we'd have to shut down all human activity for the next
>> 30 years, all vehicles and electricity, to make a 1 degree difference.
>
> it 'says' no such thing...
Yes it does.
5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they
unusual given the Earth�s very recent past.
Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what
is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know
the 1 degree increase in the last century).
Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming
Alarmist taking the stage) that earth�s last ice age (referred to as the
�little ice age�) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until
approximately 1860. This �little ice age� was responsible for disasters
like the �Irish Potato Famine�. The end of the �little ice age� was not
preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were
responsible for the �global warming� which followed the end of the
�little ice age� and continues to this date.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html ,
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey
During the Middle Ages (1066 � 1485) a time that saw the Norman�s
conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades � all 7
of them, the Early Italian Renaissance - a period of time long before
the �Industrial Revolution�, mankind contributed very little to Global
CO2 levels. The Middle Ages were a period of global warming that exceeds
the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are
now, significantly higher.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey
, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,
�A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today�s
temperatures are neither the warmest nor are they producing the most
extreme conditions, in stark contrast to the claims of the
environmentalists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm
period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures
significantly higher than today�s. They also confirm claims that a
little Ice Age set in about 1300, during which the world cooled
dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up, but has still
to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages. The end of the
little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used
by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was
relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today�s
temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms
suspicions that today�s alleged �unprecedented� temperatures are simply
the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html
The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the end of the �little ice
age� to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By
choosing the coldest period in Earth�s history over the last 10,000
years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a
warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all
of Earth�s prior warming trends.
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of
London, said: �What has been forgotten in all the discussion about
global warming is a proper sense of history.�
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,
http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm ,
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html ,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts ,
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514
If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all
carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had.
Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to
�respiration� � manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved
these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal
freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any
man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2
levels do not drive temperature.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8326 ,
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing -
the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of �warming�
that occurred in the 1990�s. Even the ultra-green �Discovery Channel�
has noted studies which indicate �global warming� is on �hold� and may
not reappear for decades. That �Global Temperatures have flatlined since
2001?. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/
The Boston Globe has asked, �Where is the Global Warming?�, before
noting, �But for many people, the science of climate change is not
nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore
insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no
debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a
man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious
zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want
to understand where global warming has gone, those aren�t the tools we
need.�
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warmi
>> Ridiculous.
>
> true
>
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-skeptical-scientist%E2%80%99s-view/
As readers are now aware, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia, the main climate research center in Britain,
has had 128 megabytes of secret emails and other data placed online by
someone calling himself �FOIA.� A number of scientists have been trying
for years to get the raw data possessed by CRU placed online, filing
requests under the British Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Although
required by law to release this information, CRU has not done so, or has
claimed that the data were accidentally erased. We now have proof in the
emails that the illegal withholding of information was intentional, and
that the erasure of data was also intentional.
The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly
suspected � that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made
up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable,
the experimental data upon which these models are built are also
unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this
deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole
cloth is the real crime � the real story of Climategate.
It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason
against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to
destroy the world economy.
The chemist and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov wrote an entire
novel, A Whiff of Death, which revolved around the seriousness of
falsifying data to make it fit one�s own theory. In the novel, the
fraudster was murdered by a senior scientist who felt very strongly
about scientific treason. My own view is that execution is a bit harsh,
and that the standard penalty of being dismissed from one�s job is quite
sufficient. But Asimov�s novel gives an excellent description of the
enormous temptation scientists face to falsify data when the pesky
experiments are refuting one�s pet theory � and it is clear from the
released emails that most of the world�s leading climate scientists have
yielded to temptation and have tried to force their data into agreement
with the theory of global warming. They should be fired.
Alas, I doubt if any of them will lose their current employment or be
disciplined in any way. Too many powerful interests are now committed to
the truth of global warming theory. These traitors to science are
bringing in huge grants to their universities, and the salaries of the
bureaucrats who run these universities are dependent on this government
grant money.
I�ve doubted the reliability of the global warming data for some time
now, so I personally am not surprised by the contents of the emails.
What the released data provide is additional proof that the temperature
data can�t be trusted and that climate scientists are engaged in a
worldwide conspiracy. And like all conspiracies, it was finally exposed.
In this case, it was most likely exposed by an honest man inside CRU who
believed that the FOIA law should be obeyed.
Two factors have enabled this particular conspiracy to survive for so long.
First, the actual data for surface temperatures have been available only
through a small number of organizations. Every experienced scientist has
had occasion to doubt a colleague�s reported experimental result. No
problem: The skeptical scientist merely has to try to replicate his
colleague�s result, and a failure means that the claim is false. But how
does one replicate the claim that the average temperature of the Earth �
an average computed from taking the data at thousands of temperature
stations all across the globe � was one degree Fahrenheit lower in 1900
that it was in 2000? It is impossible to visit all the stations today,
to say nothing of the stations of 1900. Replication is impossible.
I am automatically skeptical of any claim that by its very nature cannot
be replicated by other scientists. What keeps scientists honest is not
that scientists are more honest than other people � we aren�t � but that
we know our colleagues are looking over our shoulders. Everyone is
honest when he knows he is being watched.
We must seriously question whether climate �science� is, or even can be,
a true science if skeptics cannot check its experimental claims. The
only way climate �science� can approach being a real science is for all
of its raw data to be made available. Only then is it possible for
outsiders to check, at least partially, the claims of the insiders.
The second reason this conspiracy has been able to survive so long is
simply that climatologists are now trained to believe in global warming
theory. Remember the overwhelming urge of scientists to believe in their
own pet theory, to believe that the data simply must confirm the theory,
to believe that the only valid data points are those which confirm the
theory? Data that are inconsistent with the theory are not recorded by
believers, or not published. To true believers, such data are obviously
due to an error in making the measurements, and so need not be recorded.
This human failing is why we need outside non-believers to check the
theory against all the data � not just the data selected by the believers.
Scientific conspiracies like the global warming conspiracy are actually
quite common. They occur whenever it is difficult for outsiders to check
the claims and whenever a pet theory is involved.
The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould has pointed out that
punctuated equilibrium � the fact that species are typically not
replaced by other species gradually, but �instantaneously� � was for
centuries seen by professional paleontologists in the fossil record. But
before Gould, such observations were considered inconsistent with
Darwin�s theory of evolution. Thus the observations were not recorded.
All paleontologists were trained to believe in Darwin, and so they
adjusted the data to confirm Darwin, or did not record data �refuting�
Darwin. Only after Gould showed that such data did not refute Darwin did
paleontologists cease to adjust the data and start recording what they
had been actually seeing.
My own field of general relativity, which is Einstein�s theory of
gravity, was initially �confirmed� by �fudged� � I would say
�fraudulent� � data. Einstein had predicted that stars near the Sun
would appear displaced in their positions due to the Sun�s gravity, and
the English astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington, a fervent believer in
Einstein, set out to confirm Einstein�s theory. And confirm Einstein he
did, although Eddington�s equipment was too inaccurate to confirm or
reject Einstein. Eddington �showed� that Einstein was right by
appropriate weighing of data points, and by throwing out observations
inconsistent with Einstein�s prediction. In 1919, Eddington announced
his �confirmation� at a media circus that made Einstein a world
celebrity. Eddington�s experiment could only be conducted during a total
eclipse of the Sun, a rare event, and so Eddington�s claim could not be
checked for years.
But no experienced scientist at the time believed in Eddington�s
�confirmation.� Rather, what convinced most real scientists � including
Einstein � that general relativity was correct was another prediction:
The planet Mercury would deviate from its path as predicted by Newton�s
theory. This deviation had been observed before Einstein was born, and
agreed exactly with Einstein. Since general relativity was a theory with
no adjustable constants, the observation had to be a true confirmation.
Since the astronomers who observed Mercury�s deviation were dead before
Einstein proposed his theory, there was no chance that they had fudged
their observations to agree with Einstein.
One can always trust experimenters who get the right answer when they do
not know what the right answer is. One can never trust experimenters who
know what the right answer is (human-caused global warming), and who
have total control of the only data that can confirm or reject the
theory, and whose jobs depend on confirming it.
Jamir Quay
abelard
>abelard wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:43:58 -0600, "Devil's Advocate"
>> <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>>
>>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>>
>>> Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
>>
>> mars has vastly more irregular and extreme wobble....
>
>See: Chandler wobble.
>
>>> Weather change cycles - live with it.
>>>
>>> The math says that we'd have to shut down all human activity for the next
>>> 30 years, all vehicles and electricity, to make a 1 degree difference.
>>
>> it 'says' no such thing...
>
>Yes it does.
no it doesn't
rbu
Jamir Quay
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:04:42 -0700, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:43:58 -0600, "Devil's Advocate"
>>> <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>>>
>>>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>>>> Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
>>> mars has vastly more irregular and extreme wobble....
>> See: Chandler wobble.
>>
>>>> Weather change cycles - live with it.
>>>>
>>>> The math says that we'd have to shut down all human activity for the next
>>>> 30 years, all vehicles and electricity, to make a 1 degree difference.
>>> it 'says' no such thing...
>> Yes it does.
>
> no it doesn't
>
> rbu
>
5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they
unusual given the Earth�s very recent past.
Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what
is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know
the 1 degree increase in the last century).
Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming
Alarmist taking the stage) that earth�s last ice age (referred to as the
�little ice age�) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until
approximately 1860. This �little ice age� was responsible for disasters
like the �Irish Potato Famine�. The end of the �little ice age� was not
preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were
responsible for the �global warming� which followed the end of the
�little ice age� and continues to this date.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html ,
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey
During the Middle Ages (1066 � 1485) a time that saw the Norman�s
conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades � all 7
of them, the Early Italian Renaissance - a period of time long before
the �Industrial Revolution�, mankind contributed very little to Global
CO2 levels. The Middle Ages were a period of global warming that exceeds
the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are
now, significantly higher.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html#Hockey
, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,
�A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today�s
temperatures are neither the warmest nor are they producing the most
extreme conditions, in stark contrast to the claims of the
environmentalists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm
period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures
significantly higher than today�s. They also confirm claims that a
little Ice Age set in about 1300, during which the world cooled
dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up, but has still
to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages. The end of the
little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used
by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was
relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today�s
temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms
suspicions that today�s alleged �unprecedented� temperatures are simply
the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html
The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the end of the �little ice
age� to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By
choosing the coldest period in Earth�s history over the last 10,000
years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a
warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all
of Earth�s prior warming trends.
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of
London, said: �What has been forgotten in all the discussion about
global warming is a proper sense of history.�
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html ,
http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm ,
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html ,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/886494/posts ,
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514
If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all
carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had.
Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to
�respiration� � manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved
these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal
freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any
man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2
levels do not drive temperature.
Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing -
the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of �warming�
that occurred in the 1990�s. Even the ultra-green �Discovery Channel�
has noted studies which indicate �global warming� is on �hold� and may
not reappear for decades. That �Global Temperatures have flatlined since
2001?. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/
The Boston Globe has asked, �Where is the Global Warming?�, before
noting, �But for many people, the science of climate change is not
nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore
insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no
debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a
man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious
zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want
to understand where global warming has gone, those aren�t the tools we
need.�
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warmi
>
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-skeptical-scientist%E2%80%99s-view/
As readers are now aware, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia, the main climate research center in Britain,
has had 128 megabytes of secret emails and other data placed online by
someone calling himself �FOIA.� A number of scientists have been trying
for years to get the raw data possessed by CRU placed online, filing
requests under the British Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Although
required by law to release this information, CRU has not done so, or has
claimed that the data were accidentally erased. We now have proof in the
emails that the illegal withholding of information was intentional, and
that the erasure of data was also intentional.
The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly
suspected � that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made
up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable,
the experimental data upon which these models are built are also
unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this
deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole
cloth is the real crime � the real story of Climategate.
It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason
against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to
destroy the world economy.
The chemist and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov wrote an entire
novel, A Whiff of Death, which revolved around the seriousness of
falsifying data to make it fit one�s own theory. In the novel, the
fraudster was murdered by a senior scientist who felt very strongly
about scientific treason. My own view is that execution is a bit harsh,
and that the standard penalty of being dismissed from one�s job is quite
sufficient. But Asimov�s novel gives an excellent description of the
enormous temptation scientists face to falsify data when the pesky
experiments are refuting one�s pet theory � and it is clear from the
released emails that most of the world�s leading climate scientists have
yielded to temptation and have tried to force their data into agreement
with the theory of global warming. They should be fired.
Alas, I doubt if any of them will lose their current employment or be
disciplined in any way. Too many powerful interests are now committed to
the truth of global warming theory. These traitors to science are
bringing in huge grants to their universities, and the salaries of the
bureaucrats who run these universities are dependent on this government
grant money.
I�ve doubted the reliability of the global warming data for some time
now, so I personally am not surprised by the contents of the emails.
What the released data provide is additional proof that the temperature
data can�t be trusted and that climate scientists are engaged in a
worldwide conspiracy. And like all conspiracies, it was finally exposed.
In this case, it was most likely exposed by an honest man inside CRU who
believed that the FOIA law should be obeyed.
Two factors have enabled this particular conspiracy to survive for so long.
First, the actual data for surface temperatures have been available only
through a small number of organizations. Every experienced scientist has
had occasion to doubt a colleague�s reported experimental result. No
problem: The skeptical scientist merely has to try to replicate his
colleague�s result, and a failure means that the claim is false. But how
does one replicate the claim that the average temperature of the Earth �
an average computed from taking the data at thousands of temperature
stations all across the globe � was one degree Fahrenheit lower in 1900
that it was in 2000? It is impossible to visit all the stations today,
to say nothing of the stations of 1900. Replication is impossible.
I am automatically skeptical of any claim that by its very nature cannot
be replicated by other scientists. What keeps scientists honest is not
that scientists are more honest than other people � we aren�t � but that
we know our colleagues are looking over our shoulders. Everyone is
honest when he knows he is being watched.
We must seriously question whether climate �science� is, or even can be,
a true science if skeptics cannot check its experimental claims. The
only way climate �science� can approach being a real science is for all
of its raw data to be made available. Only then is it possible for
outsiders to check, at least partially, the claims of the insiders.
The second reason this conspiracy has been able to survive so long is
simply that climatologists are now trained to believe in global warming
theory. Remember the overwhelming urge of scientists to believe in their
own pet theory, to believe that the data simply must confirm the theory,
to believe that the only valid data points are those which confirm the
theory? Data that are inconsistent with the theory are not recorded by
believers, or not published. To true believers, such data are obviously
due to an error in making the measurements, and so need not be recorded.
This human failing is why we need outside non-believers to check the
theory against all the data � not just the data selected by the believers.
Scientific conspiracies like the global warming conspiracy are actually
quite common. They occur whenever it is difficult for outsiders to check
the claims and whenever a pet theory is involved.
The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould has pointed out that
punctuated equilibrium � the fact that species are typically not
replaced by other species gradually, but �instantaneously� � was for
centuries seen by professional paleontologists in the fossil record. But
before Gould, such observations were considered inconsistent with
Darwin�s theory of evolution. Thus the observations were not recorded.
All paleontologists were trained to believe in Darwin, and so they
adjusted the data to confirm Darwin, or did not record data �refuting�
Darwin. Only after Gould showed that such data did not refute Darwin did
paleontologists cease to adjust the data and start recording what they
had been actually seeing.
My own field of general relativity, which is Einstein�s theory of
gravity, was initially �confirmed� by �fudged� � I would say
�fraudulent� � data. Einstein had predicted that stars near the Sun
would appear displaced in their positions due to the Sun�s gravity, and
the English astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington, a fervent believer in
Einstein, set out to confirm Einstein�s theory. And confirm Einstein he
did, although Eddington�s equipment was too inaccurate to confirm or
reject Einstein. Eddington �showed� that Einstein was right by
appropriate weighing of data points, and by throwing out observations
inconsistent with Einstein�s prediction. In 1919, Eddington announced
his �confirmation� at a media circus that made Einstein a world
celebrity. Eddington�s experiment could only be conducted during a total
eclipse of the Sun, a rare event, and so Eddington�s claim could not be
checked for years.
But no experienced scientist at the time believed in Eddington�s
�confirmation.� Rather, what convinced most real scientists � including
Einstein � that general relativity was correct was another prediction:
The planet Mercury would deviate from its path as predicted by Newton�s
theory. This deviation had been observed before Einstein was born, and
agreed exactly with Einstein. Since general relativity was a theory with
no adjustable constants, the observation had to be a true confirmation.
Since the astronomers who observed Mercury�s deviation were dead before
abelard
>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:04:42 -0700, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:43:58 -0600, "Devil's Advocate"
>>>> <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>>>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>>>>> Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
>>>> mars has vastly more irregular and extreme wobble....
>>> See: Chandler wobble.
>>>
>>>>> Weather change cycles - live with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The math says that we'd have to shut down all human activity for the next
>>>>> 30 years, all vehicles and electricity, to make a 1 degree difference.
>>>> it 'says' no such thing...
>>> Yes it does.
>>
>> no it doesn't
>>
>> rbu
>>
>I don;t think you learn with any alacrity, therefore:
i realise you don't think
Jamir Quay
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:02:56 -0700, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:04:42 -0700, Jamir Quay <s...@00.ter> wrote:
>>>
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:43:58 -0600, "Devil's Advocate"
>>>>> <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Once in a China Blue Moon <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <QpqdndrqtvbaGJLW...@forethought.net>,
>>>>>>> "Devil's Advocate" <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
>>>>>>> Then why are glaciers around the world disappearing?
>>>>>> Just like the ones on Mars, they recede and come back periodically.
>>>>> mars has vastly more irregular and extreme wobble....
>>>> See: Chandler wobble.
>>>>
>>>>>> Weather change cycles - live with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The math says that we'd have to shut down all human activity for the next
>>>>>> 30 years, all vehicles and electricity, to make a 1 degree difference.
>>>>> it 'says' no such thing...
>>>> Yes it does.
>>> no it doesn't
>>>
>>> rbu
>>>
>> I don;t think you learn with any alacrity, therefore:
>
> i realise
Hopefully you do, by now..
abelard
your forgery and your repetition conform to a common
type of neurotic
rbu
Jamir Quay
Your intransigence.
And I will go on and on and on and on...
abelard
of course you will....you're uneducated, dishonest and a neurotic
Jamir Quay
Yet somehow I present facts, you do not...
~^ beancounter ~^
Jamir Quay
> smoke & mirrors.......
>
Oh yeah:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125970198500271683.html?mod=djemTMB
The British scientist at the heart of a scandal over climate-change
research temporarily stepped down Tuesday as director of a prominent
research group amid an internal probe that follows the release of hacked
emails involving him and other scientists.
The fallout from the hacked emails is spreading beyond the U.K. Also
Tuesday, Penn State University confirmed that Michael Mann -- a climate
scientist on its faculty who figures prominently in the emails -- is
under "inquiry" by the university.
Dr. Mann's work reconstructing historic global temperatures has, over
the past decade, become a focal point of debate
In one email, Dr. Jones suggested to Dr. Mann that they should try to
keep out of scientific journals the research of scientists who challenge
the idea of man-made global warming. We "will keep them out somehow --
even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" the
email says.
Jamir Quay
Jamir Quay
~^ beancounter ~^
WASHINGTON (AP) - Top White House science officials defended the
validity of global warming research against repeated Republican
attacks Wednesday that cited leaked e-mails from some climate
researchers.
The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained
by computer hackers and released last month. Climate change skeptics
contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and
suppressed data and stifled dissent.
At a Capitol Hill hearing, the president's science adviser and the
chief of the agency in charge of climate research said the e-mails did
nothing to undermine scientific consensus on climate change. Some
Republicans said they showed a "culture of corruption" among
scientists.