New documentary debunks Al Gore and the global warming scam
Irish Mike
film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in
schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided"
views.
Filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney challenged Al Gore's claims
about global warming in a new documentary, Nov. 20, 2009. (FNC)
Al Gore's award-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth,"
socked two years ago by a British court ruling that found several errors,
is facing additional scrutiny with the release of a new documentary that
seeks to rebut many of Gore's claims.
Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann
McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence
outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong,"
they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film
is not worth screening in schools because it is shown there as "an article
of science, not faith."
"I wouldn't like our documentary to have nine significant errors and if it
did, I certainly wouldn't be showing it to school children across America,
and that's the important thing," McAleer told Fox News' Sean Hannity on
Friday.
In Gore's film, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2006, the
former vice president argues that humans are causing climate change, a
problem he says is the biggest moral challenge facing the globe.
If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore
contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to
300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be
driven to extinction in half a century.
The film went on to win Academy Awards for Gore and Guggenheim and to
re-energize the environmental movement.
But in 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's film contained
nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless
accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views.
The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate
change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, adding that the film is
"substantially founded up scientific research and fact" but that the
errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Just last month, McAleer publicly confronted Gore in an contentious
exchange at an environmental journalist conference, where Gore was the
keynote speaker and took questions from the audience.
When asked by McAleer whether he would do anything to correct the errors
found by the British court, Gore said he wouldn't go through each of the
errors but added that the ruling was in favor of screening the film in
schools.
"There's been such a long discussion of each one of those specific
things," he said. "One of them for example was that polar bears really
aren't endangered. Well polar bears didn't get that word." The audience
laughed.
Phelim countered that the number of polar bears has increased and is
increasing.
"You don't think they're endangered?" Gore asked.
"The number has increased," McAleer repeated, prompting the same question
from Gore. "If the number of polar bears has increased, surely they're not
in danger."
Before McAleer could say anything else, he was interrupted by
environmental journalists who said it wasn't a debate and shut off his
microphone.
McAleer, who has reported in the past for the Financial Times and the
Economist, among other outlets, said he believes the incident shows that
the members of the Society of Environmental Journalists are simply
environmentalists, not journalists.
"They see it's their duty to protect the multi-millionaire
politician/businessman, rather than support the journalist asking
difficult questions," he said.
McElhinney, McAleer's filmmaking partner, said Gore, while doing research
for his newly released book, "Our Choice," asked a scientist to dial back
the science to fit his narrative.
"So much for the inconvenient truth," McElhinney said. "He just doesn't
like the truth."
McElhinney said it's a flawed argument by environmentalists that there's a
consensus that everyone agrees about the causes and consequences of global
warming.
"That's not how science works," she said. "It doesn't matter if 99,000
people all agree about something and one person is right. Politics works
like that -- a certain number of people vote for something and then it
becomes true. But with science, it's the one person who tells the truth."
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
_____________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
garycarson
> "In 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's global warming
> film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in
> schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided"
> views.
It's illegal to say anything rude about Islam in Britain.
--------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
joeturn
Global Warming! He is a Reptilian and his agenda is to bankrupt the
WORLD stating with overr taxing the US citizensand industry!
Reptilians hate to see humans prosper since they themselves are
destined to seek shelter from the wrath of GOD(nibiru)!
Stephen Jacobs
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:5jbot6...@recgroups.com...
[what he usually writes]
"E pur si muove"
Mike, you're worth paying attention to as a middle-stakes poker player.
(Some of that now and again would be nice). We already know that you're a
dittohead, and there may be some value in knowing that a good poker player
can be a dittohead. As a scientist and critic of science journalism, well,
you just aren't.
"Critics" of global warming are like hold'em players who make post-flop
decisions based on turn-and-river odds, knowing that they'll fold on the
turn if they don't hit. Such people are fighting with the universe, and the
universe is bigger and stronger (and has all the bankroll it needs).
I stay away from the details because the general case is where the real
action still is: Increased "greenhouse gases" cause heat to be radiated away
from the earth more slowly without changing the rate at which heat is
radiated in by the Sun. "Greenhouse gases" have been increasing steadily
for at least 120 years. At SOME point that needs to cause warming. Are we
near or at that point? Well, there's a 60-year warming trend to look at.
It may or may not be greenhouse warming, but in any event its results show
that moderate global warming has some disadvantages (desert expansion,
shifts in growing areas for certain crops away from the infrastructure to
handle those crops, increase in destructiveness of coastal storms). At the
far end, should ocean water temperatures at moderate depths increase by a
couple degrees a huge amount of methane hydrate will start to decompose,
increasing "greenhouse gases" faster than man ever has. There is a very
real danger that the climate system will run away at that point. I don't
like the prospect. If Antarctic surface ice hadn't started heading into the
ocean before then, it surely would (giving those doomsday sea level shifts
sometimes written about).
So leave out the details. I don't much care how often that player takes
10:1 to draw for his set after the flop and makes it on the next card, and I
don't care whether we're seeing anthropogenic warming today or not. Sooner
or later, causes have their effects. The most drastic response in the world
wouldn't turn this ship around for several years, and nobody is
contemplating ever having to be that drastic. To avoid a crisis, the
response has to have begun a good long time before the threat is obvious.
Right now, the responses are based on a few decades of lead time. Most of
the proposed responses have partially offsetting side-benefits (like keeping
money at home: you DO know that the biggest supplier of silicon for solar
panels is in Michigan, and the biggest (well, in some years) supplier of
wind turbine parts is GE). When it comes to semi-crisis responses, they
won't have any side benefits.
DELETETHIS
Post about hackers getting emails that show a conspiracy about global
warming (climate change)between scientist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html
Irish Mike
Interesting rant except that Gore is a Democrat and Obama is the one
trying to bankrupt the country with his idiotic cap and tax energy plan.
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
-------�
Irish Mike
The biggest problem with the global warming scam is that it has become an
industry of its own and thousands of people have jobs that depend on
keeping the scam alive. You've got ol' lard ass Al Gore who lives In a
mansion, drives in a convoy of gas guzzling SUVs and flies around in a
private jet and has made tens of millions of dollars telling gullible
idiots that they need to eat less, live colder and ride bicycles to save
the planet.
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
-------�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
> 'Interesting article from that conservative newspaper - The Washington
> Post about hackers getting emails that show a conspiracy about global
> warming (climate change)between scientist
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html'
The biggest problem with the global warming scam is that it has become an
industry of its own and thousands of people have jobs that depend on
keeping the scam alive. You've got ol' lard ass Al Gore who lives In a
mansion, drives in a convoy of gas guzzling SUVs and flies around in a
private jet and has made tens of millions of dollars telling gullible
idiots that they need to eat less, live colder and ride bicycles to save
the planet.
Irish Mike
____________________________________________________________________�
mccard
news:PPudnSD7Ifd8EpTW...@earthlink.com...
>
> "Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5jbot6...@recgroups.com...
>
> [what he usually writes]
>
>
>
>
Stephen, please don't try and confuse IM with scientific fact it only
makes him post more of this crap.
Stephen Jacobs
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Nov 22 2009 3:34 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>
>> 'Interesting article from that conservative newspaper - The Washington
>> Post about hackers getting emails that show a conspiracy about global
>> warming (climate change)between scientist
>>
>>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html'
>
> The biggest problem with the global warming scam is that it has become an
> industry of its own and thousands of people have jobs that depend on
> keeping the scam alive. You've got ol' lard ass Al Gore who lives In a
> mansion, drives in a convoy of gas guzzling SUVs and flies around in a
> private jet and has made tens of millions of dollars telling gullible
> idiots that they need to eat less, live colder and ride bicycles to save
> the planet.
>
> Irish Mike
>
Al Gore was already rich. Is any of the rest of that stuff really bad?
BTSinAustin
In light of the document scam that proves data has been manipulated and
hidden it is hard to argue with this logic.. Just the arrogance alone
displayed in the emails should be enough to cast some doubt.
_____________________________________________________________________�
garycarson
Thousands of Americans have jobs and Mick thinks that's a problem.
susan
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:gn1pt6x...@recgroups.com...
right Gary - doesn't matter truth or not.
Let's spread the rumor that Pizza cures cancer.
I'll share the proceeds with you.
ramashiva
Oh really??? The emails prove that data have been manipulated and
hidden??? Please enlighten me. You are full of shit and do not know
what you are talking about. Out of context quotes interpreted by
scientific illiterates prove nothing.
> it is hard to argue with this logic..
Cough, sputter, gasp. You are asserting that the above irrational,
provably false statement by IRush Mike displays logic??? In what
universe is that???
> Just the arrogance alone
> displayed in the emails should be enough to cast some doubt.
More brilliant illogic. Because someone is arrogant, we should doubt
that what they say is true. Too bad you are so stupid and ignorant
that you don't realize just how stupid and ignorant you are.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
bub
Irish Mike
> maybe AP needs to put 11 reporters on it to fact check the book
LOL! Good one!
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
---�
BTSinAustin
> On Nov 22, 3:53�pm, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22 2009 3:07 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > > Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people.
�It
> > > makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
>
> > In light of the document scam that proves data has been manipulated and
hidden
>
> Oh really??? The emails prove that data have been manipulated and
> hidden??? Please enlighten me. You are full of shit and do not know
> what you are talking about. Out of context quotes interpreted by
> scientific illiterates prove nothing.
Yes if you had read them as I told you to in the previous thread where I
owned you, you would know. I happen to do data analysis for a living.
So yes I do nto what shaving data points can do.
> > it is hard to argue with this logic..
>
> Cough, sputter, gasp. You are asserting that the above irrational,
> provably false statement by IRush Mike displays logic??? In what
> universe is that???
Yes, logic, look it up, comes in useful.
>
> > Just the arrogance alone
> > displayed in the emails should be enough to cast some doubt.
>
> More brilliant illogic. Because someone is arrogant, we should doubt
> that what they say is true. Too bad you are so stupid and ignorant
> that you don't realize just how stupid and ignorant you are.
LOL, this form an imaginary man who had to pay for women and runs from
threads where he is owned.
>
>
> William Coleman (imaginary idiot)
--------�
ramashiva
> On Nov 22 2009 8:59 PM, ramashiva wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 3:53 pm, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Nov 22 2009 3:07 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> > > > Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people.
> > > > It makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
> cookies.
> > > In light of the document scam that proves data has been manipulated and
> hidden
> > Oh really??? The emails prove that data have been manipulated and
> > hidden??? Please enlighten me. You are full of shit and do not know
> > what you are talking about. Out of context quotes interpreted by
> > scientific illiterates prove nothing.
> Yes if you had read them as I told you to in the previous thread where I
> owned you, you would know.
There is no thread where you owned me. You are delusional.
> I happen to do data analysis for a living.
> So yes I do nto what shaving data points can do.
Oh, I am so impressed. You are a slackjawed idiot. I don't care what
you do for a living.
> > > it is hard to argue with this logic..
> > Cough, sputter, gasp. You are asserting that the above irrational,
> > provably false statement by IRush Mike displays logic??? In what
> > universe is that???
> Yes, logic, look it up, comes in useful.
There is no logic in claiming that global warming is a scam, when the
overwhelming consensus of both the entire scientific community and the
subset of professional climatologists is that AGW is real.
> > > Just the arrogance alone
> > > displayed in the emails should be enough to cast some doubt.
> > More brilliant illogic. Because someone is arrogant, we should doubt
> > that what they say is true. Too bad you are so stupid and ignorant
> > that you don't realize just how stupid and ignorant you are.
> LOL, this form an imaginary man who had to pay for women
Imaginary man??? You are incoherent. Everyone pays for women, the
payment just takes different forms. And what does my sex life have to
do with global warming? Yeah, you are a logical person.
I notice you completely ignored what I wrote in favor of an ad hominem
attack. I will repeat it. Please respond.
You -- Just the arrogance alone displayed in the emails should be
enough to cast some doubt.
Ramashiva -- More brilliant illogic. Because someone is arrogant, we
should doubt that what they say is true. Too bad you are so stupid
and ignorant that you don't realize just how stupid and ignorant you
are.
Care to respond?
Idiot.
> and runs from threads where he is owned.
I haven't run from any threads, and you certainly haven't owned me in
any thread.
Look, do you have anything at all to offer to this discussion other
than illogical bullshit?
Why don't you trot out one of these emails which you claim shows data
was manipulated and hidden?
I already asked you to enlighten me on the subject, and you ignored
me.
You've got nothing, and you know it.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Pepe Papon
Mike needs to attack Al Gore so he can avoid addressing the actual
science.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Irish Mike
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:09:26 -0500, "Stephen Jacobs"
> <jac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:1diot6x...@recgroups.com...
> >> On Nov 22 2009 3:34 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
> >>
> >>> 'Interesting article from that conservative newspaper - The Washington
> >>> Post about hackers getting emails that show a conspiracy about global
> >>> warming (climate change)between scientist
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html'
> >>
> >> The biggest problem with the global warming scam is that it has become an
> >> industry of its own and thousands of people have jobs that depend on
> >> keeping the scam alive. You've got ol' lard ass Al Gore who lives In a
> >> mansion, drives in a convoy of gas guzzling SUVs and flies around in a
> >> private jet and has made tens of millions of dollars telling gullible
> >> idiots that they need to eat less, live colder and ride bicycles to save
> >> the planet.
> >>
> >> Irish Mike
> >>
> >
> >Al Gore was already rich. Is any of the rest of that stuff really bad?
>
> Mike needs to attack Al Gore so he can avoid addressing the actual
> science.
And what "actual science" would that be? There is no undisputed science
to prove global warming and the only "inconvenient truth" is that global
temperatures have been cooling for the last decade. So go ahead and eat
recycled tree bark, shut off your furnace and ride your bicycle but don't
try to peddle your global warming bullshit to me bucko, because I ain't
buying it.
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
-------�
da pickle
>>> The biggest problem with the global warming scam is that it has become
>>> an
>>> industry of its own and thousands of people have jobs that depend on
>>> keeping the scam alive.
>>
>> Thousands of Americans have jobs and Mick thinks that's a problem.
>
> right Gary - doesn't matter truth or not.
>
> Let's spread the rumor that Pizza cures cancer.
>
> I'll share the proceeds with you.
Gary could not have thought that one through completely.
Jerry Sturdivant
From a previous Cut & Paste & Run from Irish Mike:
> The biggest problem with the global warming scam is
> that it has become an industry of its own and thousands
> of people have jobs that depend on keeping the scam alive.
Like the GOP scam that Iraq had WMD and could attack in 15-minutes? Thousand
of people have jobs (especially Blackwater and Halliburton). And you still
Cut & Paste & Run from that fact.
Meanwhile the earth continues to warm...
Jerry 'n Vegas
- If they come with a warrant, let them in. G. Gordon Liddy
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike"
> . and the only "inconvenient truth" is that global
> temperatures have been cooling for the last decade.
And the earth continues to warm .....
BTSinAustin
> On Nov 22, 7:15�ｿｽpm, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22 2009 8:59 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 3:53�ｿｽpm, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 22 2009 3:07 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > > > > Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American
people.
> > > > >�ｿｽIt makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over
priced
> > cookies.
>
> > > > In light of the document scam that proves data has been manipulated and
> > hidden
>
> > > Oh really??? �ｿｽThe emails prove that data have been manipulated and
> > > hidden??? �ｿｽPlease enlighten me. �ｿｽYou are full of shit and do not know
> > > what you are talking about. �ｿｽOut of context quotes interpreted by
> > > scientific illiterates prove nothing.
>
> > Yes if you had read them as I told you to in the previous thread where I
> > owned you, you would know.
>
> There is no thread where you owned me. You are delusional.
>
> > �ｿｽI happen to do data analysis for a living.
> > So yes I do nto what shaving data points can do.
>
> Oh, I am so impressed. You are a slackjawed idiot. I don't care what
> you do for a living.
Oh, a slack jawed idiot. That invalidates your entire post. You are not
qualified make the coffee much less sit in one of our meetings.
Now, let me try and reply to you as you do to everyone else.
Begin rant.
Liar.
Fool.
Idoit.
Bush crime family!
I am so smart.
How dare you disagree liar!!!
I will shoot you
I carry guns
I do not carry guns
End Idiot rant.
Oh my, your method of debate is fun.
"Global Warming is true. "
Ok.. Now I have posted irrefutable proof too.
I am getting good at this.
I think I need to create a sleazy sock puppet too.
Ok your turn. Let's count the names you call me in your reply.
-------�ｿｽ
garycarson
> On Nov 22 2009 8:59 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 3:53�pm, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 22 2009 3:07 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >
> > > > Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people.
> �It
> > > > makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
> cookies.
> >
> > > In light of the document scam that proves data has been manipulated and
> hidden
> >
> > Oh really??? The emails prove that data have been manipulated and
> > hidden??? Please enlighten me. You are full of shit and do not know
> > what you are talking about. Out of context quotes interpreted by
> > scientific illiterates prove nothing.
>
>
> Yes if you had read them as I told you to in the previous thread where I
> owned you, you would know. I happen to do data analysis for a living.
> So yes I do nto what shaving data points can do.
>
I don't know anything at all about the emails in question.
But shaving data points can be a bad thing to do or it can be a good thing
to do. It just depends.
Since I'd assume you know that then the implication is that you know
something about the background of the data manipulation that suggests it
was a bad thing to do. What would that be?
>
> > > it is hard to argue with this logic..
> >
> > Cough, sputter, gasp. You are asserting that the above irrational,
> > provably false statement by IRush Mike displays logic??? In what
> > universe is that???
>
> Yes, logic, look it up, comes in useful.
>
> >
> > > Just the arrogance alone
> > > displayed in the emails should be enough to cast some doubt.
> >
> > More brilliant illogic. Because someone is arrogant, we should doubt
> > that what they say is true. Too bad you are so stupid and ignorant
> > that you don't realize just how stupid and ignorant you are.
>
> LOL, this form an imaginary man who had to pay for women and runs from
> threads where he is owned.
>
>
> >
> >
> > William Coleman (imaginary idiot)
_____________________________________________________________________�
Stephen Jacobs
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Nov 23 2009 4:10 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:09:26 -0500, "Stephen Jacobs"
>> <jac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>
> And what "actual science" would that be? There is no undisputed science
> to prove global warming and the only "inconvenient truth" is that global
> temperatures have been cooling for the last decade. So go ahead and eat
> recycled tree bark, shut off your furnace and ride your bicycle but don't
> try to peddle your global warming bullshit to me bucko, because I ain't
> buying it.
>
> Irish Mike
>
If you played poker like that you'd have had to give up the game long ago.
Actual science is called "Law of conservation of energy," coupled with
"Second law of thermodynamics" and "Planck radiation law." Together they
say that if you have a system that is at an equilibrium temperature due to
absorbing radiant energy and re-radiating it (as the earth is), and if you
decrease the amount of energy that system radiates, the temperature will
rise until the equilibrium is re-established. That one is firmer than iron.
The gross engineering details are that at the earth's present temperature,
carbon dioxide, methane and a few other gases reduce the amount of energy
the body in question (Earth) radiates. Human activity over the last
something a bit over a century have been steadily increasing the amounts of
carbon dioxide, methane and a few of those other "greenhouse gases." While
white smoke tends to counteract the warming, dark smoke tends to promote it.
We make a lot of smoke, too, but it's as much dark as white.
We've had some tastes of average temperature changes over history. It is
readily observed that more than a little bit of warming causes problems.
As I said before, it's better to leave open fine engineering details such as
whether the 60-year warming trend we've had, and which has levelled of for
the last few years, is greenhouse warming or not. We're headed for trouble;
plausibly for the worst trouble humanity has ever faced. And lately, we
have been acting as if that trouble would never come. Better to head it
off. Well, unless you're hoping for The End of Days. That becomes a
different discussion.
ramashiva
> As I said before, it's better to leave open fine engineering details such as
> whether the 60-year warming trend we've had, and which has levelled of for
> the last few years,
Stephen, I can't believe you are buying into this lie. There has been
no levelling off. Take a look at this graph in Figure 1 --
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
William Coleman (ramashiva)
joeturn
Warming is the industry that our second place winner Darvin Moon of
WSOP is in!
Thats right the dissappearance of them big trees are taking a toll on
the displacement of carbon dioxide with oxygen.
However how many jobs depends on fresh cut lumber.
This is the guy that uses the saw to cut lumber to build shelter for
organic vegetables to flood the resturants ect...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$
Stephen Jacobs
"ramashiva" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:564ef21e-5448-4fe7...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
What I said was that I don't care about it. As the site you have referenced
points out, the 4-11 year number is within the range of expected
fluctuations. Just about any other roughly 10-year change is within
expected fluctuations. The 60-year warming trend makes it to "interesting,
and possibly meaningful," but it isn't all that significant to the real
issue either. What is significant is that human activity is pushing the
Earth in a warming direction with increasing forcefulness, that a few
degrees of warming would be disruptive, and that there are mechanisms which
would, beyond some unknown degree of warming, cause a decades-to-centuries
duration increase in the warming impetus. The consequences of more than a
few degrees of warming would be catastrophic, by any human definition.
If it wasn't for the possible hand-off of greenhouse gas production from
humans to nature, complacecy could perhaps be justified (Like the
Freakonomics argument that building dikes is a cost-effective response to
rising sea level). But there's already some evidence that decay of stored
humus in tundra areas is becoming a noticeable source of carbon dioxide.
That is one of those bad mechanisms if it gets going to a large extent. As
I've said before, decomposition of methane hydrates in shallow ocean areas
is kind of a jackpot event, and I don't think anyone has a clue how close
that might be.
BTSinAustin
It comes down to making the data say what you want it to.
I do not have time to read all of them. I did download it all though,
this kind of thing seems to disappear from the net. I am not a left or
right winger. I am withholding opinion on global warming. I am a skeptic
not because of what Exxon says but because of the lack of reasonable
debate. An old trick of the left is to shout down or make you look like
a kook if you disagree (just like the right will call you a commie or
unpatriotic).
I am not claiming to understand the science but here are a few excerpts
from the emails that make you wonder. Remember this is from a publicly
funded university, not a private institution trying to protect IP rights.
Very best quote
�I�ve just completed Mike�s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith�s to hide the decline.�
From Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):
Yeah, it wasn�t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer � 10 year � period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what
you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a
possibility then others might also. Anyway, I�ll maybe cut the last few
points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that�s
trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.
From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is
in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence
of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s
new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t.
inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the
Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all
know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable
accusations.
From Michael E. Mann (withholding of information / data):
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I�ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I
wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing
that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from
the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to
some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel
free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don�t pass it
along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide
dissent):
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you�re free to use RC
[RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what
comments we screen through, and we�ll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might
want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments
up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should
be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you�d like us to
include.
From Phil Jones (withholding of data):
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as
well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will
be hiding behind them.
From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith
will do likewise. He�s not in at the moment � minor family crisis. Can you
also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don�t have his new email
address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
No one is denying these are legitimate emails. In fact some players are
saying they are real. I have done a search on the emails and confirmed
every one of these.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack
These and many more here
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
_____________________________________________________________________�
ramashiva
> I am not claiming to understand the science but here are a few excerpts
> from the emails that make you wonder. Remember this is from a publicly
> funded university, not a private institution trying to protect IP rights.
> Very best quote
> “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
> each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
> for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Oh good. You finally posted some of the emails which you claim show
that data was manipulated and hidden. Since you claim this is your
very best quote, I will just destroy any claim that this shows
manipulation or hiding of data. Your other emails can be similarly
disposed of.
As I already told you, out of context quotes interpreted by scientific
illiterates prove nothing. Here is your quote put in context by a
trained climatologist --
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha”
phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning
quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature
reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie
from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The
paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper
on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’
is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so
that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use
the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”,
rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing
problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known
that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges
from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known
as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this
paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in
Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always
recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so
while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is
‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely
appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental.
But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal
emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence
for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t
much to it.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BTSinAustin
Again a weak answer from a weak mind. These guys are scrambling around to
cover their asses.
Bottom line here Paul, William, Bill, whatever or who ever you are. You
blindly follow this like a religion. Another time someone dared speak
against what all the scientists and the church thought he was thrown in
jail. Galileo for saying the earth was not the center of the universe.
By the way, it must be fun for you to sit here all day every day. Those
of us that actually contribute to the world can only do this holiday weeks.
So go ahead and answer the rest of them. You did one. More than I
expected. I thought you woudl just say I was a liar.
BTSinAustin
Challenge to you. Show me some examples where the word trick is used as
it is in your copy and paste quote. Since it is so common you should be
able to produce 5 today right. I would bet you but your alter ego is
defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
ramashiva
> Again a weak answer from a weak mind.
LOL. My quote destroys any claim that data were manipulated or
hidden. But it is a "weak answer" according to you.
> These guys are scrambling around to cover their asses.
No they are not. They are scrambling to put the out of context quotes
in context. No data was manipulated. No data was hidden. Deal with
it.
> Bottom line here Paul, William, Bill, whatever or who ever you are. You
> blindly follow this like a religion.
Nope. I have sufficient training and education in mathematics and
science that I can evaluate the evidence and arguments myself. The
evidence for AGW is overwhelming. Anyone who denies this is a total
fool.
> Another time someone dared speak
> against what all the scientists and the church thought he was thrown in
> jail. Galileo for saying the earth was not the center of the universe.
Big difference. Galileo had objective evidence to support his
position. Global warming deniers have no evidence, only lies and
bullshit.
> By the way, it must be fun for you to sit here all day every day. Those
> of us that actually contribute to the world can only do this holiday weeks.
I don't sit here all day everyday. I didn't post for weeks, and I
will be departing again shortly.
> So go ahead and answer the rest of them. You did one.
You said that was the best you have, and I destroyed it. I am not
going to waste more time dealing with more out of context quotes. If
you want to see the rest of your list demolished, read the comments in
the link I provided.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BillB
"BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:g06rt6x...@recgroups.com...
> Challenge to you. Show me some examples where the word trick is
> used as
> it is in your copy and paste quote. Since it is so common you
> should be
> able to produce 5 today right. I would bet you but your alter ego
> is
> defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
>
> Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
Someone of lesser intelligence could just look it up in the
dictionary.
trick (plural: tricks) noun
...
3. An effective, clever or quick way of doing something.
BTSinAustin
You proved nothing. Show me examples of where the term trick is used in
that context. Until then you are incorrect.
BTSinAustin
> ....
> 3. An effective, clever or quick way of doing something.
LOL, too easy to use the old reading comprehension line on you. Nice troll
My point is not to argue with a non existent guy ala William, but to point
out that copying a quote from the main stream media is not proof of shit.
The response to a leaked email is to say... "oh we use that term all the
time" Nothing to see here, return to your homes.
And the really funny thing is I do not dispute the warming theory. I am
just amused by the violent reaction of people to any one who questions.
I really do not care who writes the Coleman crap. Who ever it is has a
good grasp of a lot but tends to copy and paste a bit too much and in over
their head a lot. But it has been entertaining. Too bad he does not try
for real debate, that woudl be really fun.
--------�
ramashiva
> You proved nothing. Show me examples of where the term trick is used in
> that context. Until then you are incorrect.
I proved that, put in context, your quote does not show manipulation
or hiding of data. Case closed.
Now you want to argue about whether "trick" is commonly used by
scientists and mathematicians as meaning "an effective, clever, or
quick way of doing things". That term is extremely common. I have
used it and heard it many times. The fact that this is the dictionary
definition is proof enough.
You have lost the argument. Now you want to set additional conditions
that I must meet.
Go fuck yourself. You lost the argument. Idiots like you never
concede you lost an argument. End of story.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"ramashiva"
LOL keep trying Willie
Now tell us about sitting in your car when the big bad boyz came up and
scared you.
"ramashiva"
>Susan, I was there. You weren't. I was sitting in my car. Whether
>you believe that is of no concern to me.
Were you sitting in your car here too?
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Coleman" <ramashiva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: second email from ramashiva to razzo
When I transform myself into the Angel of Death, this is what I do.
I put on black Levis and a black Nike sweatshirt. Then I put on full body
armor. Then I put on a heavy leather black jacket. Then I put on my
black
London Fog trenchcoat. Naturally all this bulk makes me look absolutely
huge -- like I weigh 500 pounds.
Then I put on a gun belt around my waist on top of my trench coat. On
the
left side, I put on a Ruger .357 magnum revolver with a 3" barrel. On the
right side, I put on a Ruger .357 magnum revolver with 6" barrel. Then I
take my .300 Remington Magnum sniper rifle and sling it diagonally over my
right shoulder with the rifle behind my back, naturally. Then I take my
M1A
.308 combat rifle and sling in diagonally over my left shoulder. In case
you don't know, the M1A is an exact replica of the legendary M-14, which
is
the rifle I carried and trained with in both Marine Corps boot camp and
Marine Corps infantry training. Then I take a bandolier with quick reload
cylinders for both revolvers and loaded magazines for both rifles and
sling
it over my right shoulder. Then I take another bandolier with 50 rounds
of
12-gauge shotgun ammunition and sling it over my left shoulder. This
shotgun ammunition is 3" magnum shells each loaded with two ounces of BBs.
Then I put on my $200 Bausch and Lomb sunglasses. Then I put on my $300
black Stetson hat. Then I pick up my 12-gauge Winchester Defender with an
18" cylinder bore barrel and a seven-shot magazine extension. Then I load
my Winchester Defender with seven rounds of the aforementioned magnum
ammunition. Then I chamber a round in the shotgun and take the safety
off.
Then I walk out into the street. As Carol King says, you can't talk to a
man with a shotgun in his hand.
You had better believe that there is no scarier sight on Earth than the
sight of Ramashiva transformed into the Angel of Death.
ramashiva
> My point is not to argue with a non existent guy ala William, but to point
> out that copying a quote from the main stream media is not proof of shit.
Of course it is. If you can read for comprehension, you know the
quote destroyed any claim that the email was evidence of manipulation
and hiding of data.
> The response to a leaked email is to say... "oh we use that term all the
> time" Nothing to see here, return to your homes.
Which is correct. "Trick" is commonly used as indicated. Only idiots
like you would think that "trick" in this context means something
deceptive.
> And the really funny thing is I do not dispute the warming theory. I am
> just amused by the violent reaction of people to any one who questions.
My reaction is not violent. I have no patience for fools and idiots.
You are both.
> I really do not care who writes the Coleman crap.
There is no big mystery. My name is William Coleman, and I write it
all.
> Who ever it is has a
> good grasp of a lot but tends to copy and paste a bit too much
That is a really stupid comment. When what I need is available on the
internet, of course I copy and paste.
Idiot.
> and in over their head a lot.
LOL. That's funny. You are way over your head in trying to debate me
on any subject.
> But it has been entertaining. Too bad he does not try
> for real debate, that woudl be really fun.
I did try. I finally got you to publish some emails. I destroyed
what you said was your very best. Your response was to claim I had
proved nothing and try to start a semantic quibble about the word
"trick". Your response reveals an intellectual dishonesty of profound
depths. No debate is possible with you. You are the one responsible
for there being no real debate, not me.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BTSinAustin
You crack me up. Idot, fool, liar, etc
I give up you are incapable of debate
BTSinAustin
> "ramashiva"
>
> LOL keep trying Willie
>
> Now tell us about sitting in your car when the big bad boyz came up and
> scared you.
>
> "ramashiva"
>
> >Susan, I was there. You weren't. I was sitting in my car. Whether
> >you believe that is of no concern to me.
>
> Were you sitting in your car here too?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Coleman" <ramashiva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:03 PM
> Subject: second email from ramashiva to razzo
>
Oh god I am glad you dug this up
What an idiot
Dissection later
>
>
>
> When I transform myself into the Angel of Death, this is what I do.
>
> I put on black Levis and a black Nike sweatshirt. Then I put on full body
> armor. Then I put on a heavy leather black jacket. Then I put on my
> black
> London Fog trenchcoat. Naturally all this bulk makes me look absolutely
> huge -- like I weigh 500 pounds.
>
> Then I put on a gun belt around my waist on top of my trench coat. On
> the
> left side, I put on a Ruger .357 magnum revolver with a 3" barrel. On the
> right side, I put on a Ruger .357 magnum revolver with 6" barrel. Then I
> take my .300 Remington Magnum sniper rifle and sling it diagonally over my
> right shoulder with the rifle behind my back, naturally. Then I take my
> M1A
> ..308 combat rifle and sling in diagonally over my left shoulder. In case
> you don't know, the M1A is an exact replica of the legendary M-14, which
> is
> the rifle I carried and trained with in both Marine Corps boot camp and
> Marine Corps infantry training. Then I take a bandolier with quick reload
> cylinders for both revolvers and loaded magazines for both rifles and
> sling
> it over my right shoulder. Then I take another bandolier with 50 rounds
> of
> 12-gauge shotgun ammunition and sling it over my left shoulder. This
> shotgun ammunition is 3" magnum shells each loaded with two ounces of BBs.
>
> Then I put on my $200 Bausch and Lomb sunglasses. Then I put on my $300
> black Stetson hat. Then I pick up my 12-gauge Winchester Defender with an
> 18" cylinder bore barrel and a seven-shot magazine extension. Then I load
> my Winchester Defender with seven rounds of the aforementioned magnum
> ammunition. Then I chamber a round in the shotgun and take the safety
> off.
> Then I walk out into the street. As Carol King says, you can't talk to a
> man with a shotgun in his hand.
>
> You had better believe that there is no scarier sight on Earth than the
> sight of Ramashiva transformed into the Angel of Death.
------�
ramashiva
> You crack me up. Idot, fool, liar, etc
> I give up you are incapable of debate
Nope. I tried to engage you in debate. I destroyed what you claimed
was evidence that data had been manipulated and hidden. Rather than
gracefully accept defeat, you tried to start a semantic quibble.
You are the one incapable of debate. Deal with it.
By the way you have used up your allotted time which I allow for fools
and idiots. It is obvious I am wasting my time trying to discuss
anything with you.
Goodby.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"ramashiva"
>Goodby.
>William Coleman (ramashiva)
teehee running away again
BTSinAustin
> On Nov 23 2009 4:09 PM, susan wrote:
>
> > "ramashiva"
> >
> > LOL keep trying Willie
> >
> > Now tell us about sitting in your car when the big bad boyz came up and
> > scared you.
> >
> > "ramashiva"
> >
> > >Susan, I was there. You weren't. I was sitting in my car. Whether
> > >you believe that is of no concern to me.
> >
> > Were you sitting in your car here too?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "William Coleman" <ramashiva@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
> > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:03 PM
> > Subject: second email from ramashiva to razzo
> >
>
> Oh god I am glad you dug this up
>
> What an idiot
>
> Dissection later
Dissection not necessary, it is too stupid to bother.
I have literally laughed out loud for 5 minutes. One of my two best
friends is the several time world champion 1000 yard bench rest shooter.
We just got off the phone. He is forwarding this around as it too funny
not to share. To make it better I threw this in...
"
You people have no idea who or what I am. Let me give you a clue. A
Perfected Kundalini Yoga Master can make anything happen with a
thought.
If you are wondering why I am not a billionaire getting my brains
fucked out 24/7 by Mariah Carey and Jessica Simpson, the answer is
simple.
"
--------�
Jerry Sturdivant
And the earth continues to warm �������.
BTSinAustin
I am so sorry, had I know I was dealing with a perfected kundalini yoga
master I would have been more respectful
______________________________________________________________________�
Pepe Papon
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> You said that was the best you have, and I destroyed it. I am not
>> going to waste more time dealing with more out of context quotes. If
>> you want to see the rest of your list demolished, read the comments in
>> the link I provided.
>
>You proved nothing. Show me examples of where the term trick is used in
>that context. Until then you are incorrect.
He's absolutely correct. I was a computer science major in college
and a programmer for several years at a Fortune Five corporation, and
I can assure you that "trick" is used precisely as described in the
cited link. This is true whether or not you choose to believe me.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Pepe Papon
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental.
>> But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal
>> emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence
>> for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn�t
>> much to it.
>>
>>
>> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>Challenge to you. Show me some examples where the word trick is used as
>it is in your copy and paste quote. Since it is so common you should be
>able to produce 5 today right. I would bet you but your alter ego is
>defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
>
>Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
Challenge to you. Since you're the one disputing the content of the
cite, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the scientist is
lying about the use of the word "trick". But since he's telling the
truth, such a proof would be quite a trick.
garycarson
It sounds like they realized they were working with a bad model and were
just too lazy to work on model improvement and decided to just fudge the
data to hide the flaws in the model because they didn't want to have to
admit their models were less than perfect.
That's really bad.
All models are wrong, it's a fundamental characteristic of what it means
to be a model. To pretend otherwise is just bad science. These guys
sound like clowns, not scientists.
----�
Pepe Papon
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Nov 23 2009 4:10 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:09:26 -0500, "Stephen Jacobs"
>> <jac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:1diot6x...@recgroups.com...
>> >> On Nov 22 2009 3:34 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> 'Interesting article from that conservative newspaper - The Washington
>> >>> Post about hackers getting emails that show a conspiracy about global
>> >>> warming (climate change)between scientist
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093_pf.html'
>> >>
>> >> The biggest problem with the global warming scam is that it has become an
>> >> industry of its own and thousands of people have jobs that depend on
>> >> keeping the scam alive. You've got ol' lard ass Al Gore who lives In a
>> >> mansion, drives in a convoy of gas guzzling SUVs and flies around in a
>> >> private jet and has made tens of millions of dollars telling gullible
>> >> idiots that they need to eat less, live colder and ride bicycles to save
>> >> the planet.
>> >>
>> >> Irish Mike
>> >>
>> >
>> >Al Gore was already rich. Is any of the rest of that stuff really bad?
>>
>> Mike needs to attack Al Gore so he can avoid addressing the actual
>> science.
>
>And what "actual science" would that be? There is no undisputed science
>to prove global warming and the only "inconvenient truth" is that global
>temperatures have been cooling for the last decade. So go ahead and eat
>recycled tree bark, shut off your furnace and ride your bicycle but don't
>try to peddle your global warming bullshit to me bucko, because I ain't
>buying it.
Since nobody claims that there's "undisputed science to prove global
warming", your assertion is nothing but a straw man. The actual
truth is that there is overwhelming consensus among climatologists
that global warming is highly probable and that it's highly probable
that human activity contributes to it. Can you see the difference?
>Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
>makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
>cookies.
I like the way you consistently assert this as a fact. The fact is
that there is no science at all to support your claim.
garycarson
> On Nov 23, 10:40�am, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I am not claiming to understand the science but here are a few excerpts
> > from the emails that make you wonder. �Remember this is from a publicly
> > funded university, not a private institution trying to protect IP rights.
>
> > Very best quote
>
> > �I�ve just completed Mike�s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
> > each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
> > for Keith�s to hide the decline.�
>
> Oh good. You finally posted some of the emails which you claim show
> that data was manipulated and hidden. Since you claim this is your
> very best quote, I will just destroy any claim that this shows
> manipulation or hiding of data. Your other emails can be similarly
> disposed of.
>
> As I already told you, out of context quotes interpreted by scientific
> illiterates prove nothing. Here is your quote put in context by a
> trained climatologist --
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
>
> No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded �gotcha�
> phrases will be pulled out of context.
That link doesn't provide context. It just says that the fraud was okay
because it wasn't funded by Soros.
_______________________________________________________________________�
garycarson
> On Nov 23 2009 3:02 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:g06rt6x...@recgroups.com...
> >
> > > Challenge to you. Show me some examples where the word trick is
> > > used as
> > > it is in your copy and paste quote. Since it is so common you
> > > should be
> > > able to produce 5 today right. I would bet you but your alter ego
> > > is
> > > defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
Oh come on, the term is used all the time. A common usage among data
analysts is to talk about replacing X with f(x) as a trick to turn a
clearly non-linear problem into a linear one. It's a trick and does have
some non-obvious implications for things like standard errors, it's not
always simple to make a direct translation from the std. errors of f(x)
back to X although many people who use a transformation "trick" pretend
otherwise.
Another common trick is a change of variable, again to make a problem
manageble or to at least appear manageble.
The term is very common in optimization modeling, in stochastic modeling,
and data analysis.
But, even so, I think the totallity of those emails is very damning. But
a single instance with a reference to some kind of transformation "trick"
is not.
The totality of the comments makes it appear that they were not trying to
just make the problem of fitting a model more manageable (which is a
perfectly acceptable thing to do) but were actively trying to hide flaws
in the model.
-------�
BTSinAustin
I have no reason to doubt you. Thanks for reasonable response.
"You had better believe that there is no scarier sight on Earth than the
sight of Ramashiva transformed into the Angel of Death."
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2735/4129434416_6fd338d387.jpg
-----�
FL Turbo
<jac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"ramashiva" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:564ef21e-5448-4fe7...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Nov 23, 8:22 am, "Stephen Jacobs" <jac...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> As I said before, it's better to leave open fine engineering details such
>> as
>> whether the 60-year warming trend we've had, and which has levelled of for
>> the last few years,
>
>Stephen, I can't believe you are buying into this lie. There has been
>no levelling off. Take a look at this graph in Figure 1 --
>
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
>
>What I said was that I don't care about it. As the site you have referenced
>points out, the 4-11 year number is within the range of expected
>fluctuations. Just about any other roughly 10-year change is within
>expected fluctuations. The 60-year warming trend makes it to "interesting,
>and possibly meaningful," but it isn't all that significant to the real
>issue either. What is significant is that human activity is pushing the
>Earth in a warming direction with increasing forcefulness, that a few
>degrees of warming would be disruptive, and that there are mechanisms which
>would, beyond some unknown degree of warming, cause a decades-to-centuries
>duration increase in the warming impetus. The consequences of more than a
>few degrees of warming would be catastrophic, by any human definition.
>
>If it wasn't for the possible hand-off of greenhouse gas production from
>humans to nature, complacecy could perhaps be justified (Like the
>Freakonomics argument that building dikes is a cost-effective response to
>rising sea level). But there's already some evidence that decay of stored
>humus in tundra areas is becoming a noticeable source of carbon dioxide.
>That is one of those bad mechanisms if it gets going to a large extent. As
>I've said before, decomposition of methane hydrates in shallow ocean areas
>is kind of a jackpot event, and I don't think anyone has a clue how close
>that might be.
>
Here is an excellent graphic description of lower troposphere
temperature as recorded by satellite data, dating back to 1979 when
the satellites first started recording temperature.
It also tracks the atmospheric CO2 level.
The large scale model is a static representation from September 2009,
but the smaller one on the sidebar shows the latest, up to date
numbers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/
A neat little graph that will also be updated as new data is collected
that the average person can look at, and see what's happening NOW.
And now,
for something Completely Different
CRU Emails �may� be open to interpretation, but commented code by the
programmer tells the real story
22 11 2009
When the CRU emails first made it into news stories, there was
immediate reaction from the head of CRU, Dr. Phil Jones over this
passage in an email:
From a yahoo.com news story:
In one leaked e-mail, the research center�s director, Phil Jones,
writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the
last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist
to �hide the decline� in recent global temperatures. Some evidence
appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about
1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a
rise in temperatures is continuing.
Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had �just completed Mike�s
Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last
20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith�s to hide
the decline,� according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed
was genuine.
Dr. Jones responded.
However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment
had been taken out of context. �The word �trick� was used here
colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest
that it refers to anything untoward,� he said in a statement Saturday.
Ok fine, but how Dr. Jones, do you explain this?
There�s a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents
from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the
remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun.
The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it
shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore
inconvenient data to show what I want it to show.
The code after a quick scan is quite a mess.
Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public
viewing.
As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the
MANN code files:
Here�s the code with the comments left by the programmer:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The graphics of the actual code in question is displayed here.
RGP programming and statistics nerds are invited to comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn�t accurate saying it
was �taken out of context�, but a programmer making notes in the code
does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at
that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why
this function doesn�t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing
all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer
months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out
because �these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the
real temperatures�, which implies some post processing routine.
Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I�ll believe programmer
notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting
there�s nothing �untowards� about it.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not.
Data that has been �artificially adjusted to look closer to the real
temperatures� is false data, yielding a false result.
For more details, see Mike�s Nature Trick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
BTSinAustin
As stated earlier, I am only skeptical of this one institution. But for
some reason I am attacked as a right winger. That being said, lets open
this back up.
Seems the same guys deleted all the source data because they were out of
storage space.
They must not have a Best Buy or Fry's handy where they could get SATA
drives for 80 bucks a terabyte or cheaper.
"
Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data
CEI Petitions EPA to Reopen Global Warming Rulemaking
Washington, D.C., October 6, 2009―In the wake of a revelation by a
key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the
Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global
warming proceeding.
In mid-August the University of East Anglia�s Climate Research Unit (CRU)
disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface
temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU
data have been the basis for several of the major international studies
that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU�s destruction of data,
however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.
In a declaration filed with CEI�s petition, Cato Institute scholar and
climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU�s revelation �a totally new
element� that �violates basic scientific principles, and �throws even more
doubt� on the claims of global warming alarmists.
CEI�s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU�s disclosure
casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA�s proposal to
regulate carbon dioxide. EPA stopped accepting public comments in late
June but has not yet issued its final decision. As CEI�s petition argues,
court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when
those facts change the underlying issues.
CEI general counsel Sam Kazman stated, �EPA is resting its case on
international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU�s
suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date,
makes that information totally unreliable. If EPA doesn�t reexamine the
implications of this, it�s stumbling blindly into the most important
regulatory issue we face.�
Among CRU�s funders are the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy � U.S.
taxpayers.
"
One of many links to story.
http://cei.org/news-release/2009/10/05/govt-funded-research-unit-destroyed-original-climate-data
"You had better believe that there is no scarier sight on Earth than the
sight of Ramashiva transformed into the Angel of Death."
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2735/4129434416_6fd338d387.jpg
------�
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:17:40 -0800, "BTSinAustin"
><a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> You said that was the best you have, and I destroyed it. I am not
>>> going to waste more time dealing with more out of context quotes. If
>>> you want to see the rest of your list demolished, read the comments in
>>> the link I provided.
>>
>>You proved nothing. Show me examples of where the term trick is used in
>>that context. Until then you are incorrect.
>
>He's absolutely correct. I was a computer science major in college
>and a programmer for several years at a Fortune Five corporation, and
>I can assure you that "trick" is used precisely as described in the
>cited link. This is true whether or not you choose to believe me.
I do understand that mathematicians and programmers use techniques to
simplify computations to get the same result as "brute force"
computations.
For example, add all the numbers from 1 to 100.
The obvious "trick" there will save you from actually adding all the
numbers one at a time.
Currently, there are a whole lot of programmers examining the "trick"
in question to see if it actually does that kind of thing or whether
it was used to get a bogus result.
Stay tuned for further developments.
FL Turbo
I would tell you that you need to erase the phrase "overwhelming
consensus" when speaking about a scientific issue.
The term "consensus" itself applies to politics, not science.
FL Turbo
It's all part of the game.
Anyone expressing skepticism is labeled as a Right Winger.
Probably to keep people from defecting to the wrong side.
(I could be wrong, though)
>Seems the same guys deleted all the source data because they were out of
>storage space.
>They must not have a Best Buy or Fry's handy where they could get SATA
>drives for 80 bucks a terabyte or cheaper.
>
Heehe
Oh, oh.
That's it for you.
You quoted CEI and the Cato Institute.
You're sure to be ousted from the ranks of the Independents and
Liberals and Progressives.
You're probably a shill for Big Oil.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>>Since nobody claims that there's "undisputed science to prove global
>>warming", your assertion is nothing but a straw man. The actual
>>truth is that there is overwhelming consensus among climatologists
>>that global warming is highly probable and that it's highly probable
>>that human activity contributes to it. Can you see the difference?
>>
>
>I would tell you that you need to erase the phrase "overwhelming
>consensus" when speaking about a scientific issue.
>
>The term "consensus" itself applies to politics, not science.
I can't imagine where you got that idea from. The term can apply to
any number of areas, science included.
Irish Mike
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:43:28 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Since nobody claims that there's "undisputed science to prove global
> >>warming", your assertion is nothing but a straw man. The actual
> >>truth is that there is overwhelming consensus among climatologists
> >>that global warming is highly probable and that it's highly probable
> >>that human activity contributes to it. Can you see the difference?
> >>
> >
> >I would tell you that you need to erase the phrase "overwhelming
> >consensus" when speaking about a scientific issue.
> >
> >The term "consensus" itself applies to politics, not science.
>
> I can't imagine where you got that idea from. The term can apply to
> any number of areas, science included.
It is an "overwhelming consensus" as long as you ignore the hundreds of
scientists who say global warming is bullshit
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
______________________________________________________________________�
da pickle
>>Since nobody claims that there's "undisputed science to prove global
>>warming", your assertion is nothing but a straw man. The actual
>>truth is that there is overwhelming consensus among climatologists
>>that global warming is highly probable and that it's highly probable
>>that human activity contributes to it. Can you see the difference?
>>
>
> I would tell you that you need to erase the phrase "overwhelming
> consensus" when speaking about a scientific issue.
>
> The term "consensus" itself applies to politics, not science.
As this "overwhelming consensus" unravels, the subject will gradually
disappear from RGP.
Lab Rat
> "Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5jbot6...@recgroups.com...
>
> [what he usually writes]
>
> "E pur si muove"
>
> Mike, you're worth paying attention to as a middle-stakes poker player.
> (Some of that now and again would be nice). We already know that you're a
> dittohead, and there may be some value in knowing that a good poker player
> can be a dittohead. As a scientist and critic of science journalism, well,
> you just aren't.
>
> "Critics" of global warming are like hold'em players who make post-flop
> decisions based on turn-and-river odds, knowing that they'll fold on the
> turn if they don't hit. Such people are fighting with the universe, and the
> universe is bigger and stronger (and has all the bankroll it needs).
>
> I stay away from the details because the general case is where the real
> action still is: Increased "greenhouse gases" cause heat to be radiated away
> from the earth more slowly without changing the rate at which heat is
> radiated in by the Sun. "Greenhouse gases" have been increasing steadily
> for at least 120 years. At SOME point that needs to cause warming. Are we
> near or at that point? Well, there's a 60-year warming trend to look at.
> It may or may not be greenhouse warming, but in any event its results show
> that moderate global warming has some disadvantages (desert expansion,
> shifts in growing areas for certain crops away from the infrastructure to
> handle those crops, increase in destructiveness of coastal storms). At the
> far end, should ocean water temperatures at moderate depths increase by a
> couple degrees a huge amount of methane hydrate will start to decompose,
> increasing "greenhouse gases" faster than man ever has.
No, it won't.
> There is a very real danger that the climate system will run away at that
point.
Lol. No, there isn't. For several reasons. Go educate yourself, then you
can come back and retract this particular doomsday hogwash. Unless you're
as dumb as Skillz, that is.
Here, I'll even help:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2007.hydrate_rev.pdf
yw.
------�
BTSinAustin
I hope not, it is so funny to see heads explode when someone dares to
question the religion...I mean theory.
"You had better believe that there is no scarier sight on Earth than the
sight of Ramashiva transformed into the Angel of Death."
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2735/4129434416_6fd338d387.jpg
-------�
Brandii
It was not the the term "trick" that caused most of the grief with
that email among most skeptics. It was the three words "hide the
decline" (the decline in temps the last 11 years) that are damning.
When alarmists dismiss that particular email, they never, ever mention
those three words. The alarmists have used the tactic of defending the
use of the word trick as one of defending the entire email, which is
of course laughable.
Busted
Brandii
wrote:
> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please explain the words "hide the decline". That is where the damning
content is in that email.
Busted
garycarson
> On Nov 23, 6:41�ｿｽpm, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> wrote:
> > On Nov 23 2009 3:38 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 23 2009 3:02 PM, BillB wrote:
> >
> > > > "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > >news:g06rt6x...@recgroups.com...
> >
> > > > > Challenge to you. �ｿｽShow me some examples where the word trick is
> > > > > used as
> > > > > it is in your copy and paste quote. �ｿｽSince it is so common you
> > > > > should be
> > > > > able to produce 5 today right. �ｿｽI would bet you but your alter ego
> > > > > is
> > > > > defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
> >
> > Oh come on, the term is used all the time. �ｿｽA common usage among data
> > analysts is to talk about replacing X with f(x) as a trick to turn a
> > clearly non-linear problem into a linear one. �ｿｽIt's a trick and does have
> > some non-obvious implications for things like standard errors, it's not
> > always simple to make a direct translation from the std. errors of f(x)
> > back to X although many people who use a transformation "trick" �ｿｽpretend
> > otherwise. �ｿｽ
> >
> > Another common trick is a change of variable, again to make a problem
> > manageble or to at least appear manageble.
> >
> > The term is very common in optimization modeling, in stochastic modeling,
> > and data analysis.
> >
> > But, even so, I think the totallity of those emails is very damning. �ｿｽBut
> > a single instance with a reference to some kind of transformation "trick"
> > is not.
> >
> > The totality of the comments makes it appear that they were not trying to
> > just make the problem of fitting a model more manageable (which is a
> > perfectly acceptable thing to do) but were actively trying to hide flaws
> > in the model.
> >
> It was not the the term "trick" that caused most of the grief with
> that email among most skeptics. It was the three words "hide the
> decline" (the decline in temps the last 11 years) that are damning.
> When alarmists dismiss that particular email, they never, ever mention
> those three words. The alarmists have used the tactic of defending the
> use of the word trick as one of defending the entire email, which is
> of course laughable.
>
Yes, I know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be honest about the use of
the word.
---�ｿｽ
garycarson
Brandii
wrote:
> On Nov 24 2009 10:06 AM, Brandii wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > > On Nov 23 2009 3:38 PM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 23 2009 3:02 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> > > > > "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > > >news:g06rt6x...@recgroups.com...
>
> > > > > > used as
> > > > > > it is in your copy and paste quote. Since it is so common you
> > > > > > should be
> > > > > > able to produce 5 today right. I would bet you but your alter ego
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
>
> > > analysts is to talk about replacing X with f(x) as a trick to turn a
> > > some non-obvious implications for things like standard errors, it's not
> > > always simple to make a direct translation from the std. errors of f(x)
> > > otherwise.
>
> > > Another common trick is a change of variable, again to make a problem
> > > manageble or to at least appear manageble.
>
> > > The term is very common in optimization modeling, in stochastic modeling,
> > > and data analysis.
>
> > > a single instance with a reference to some kind of transformation "trick"
> > > is not.
>
> > > The totality of the comments makes it appear that they were not trying to
> > > just make the problem of fitting a model more manageable (which is a
> > > perfectly acceptable thing to do) but were actively trying to hide flaws
> > > in the model.
>
> > It was not the the term "trick" that caused most of the grief with
> > that email among most skeptics. It was the three words "hide the
> > decline" (the decline in temps the last 11 years) that are damning.
> > When alarmists dismiss that particular email, they never, ever mention
> > those three words. The alarmists have used the tactic of defending the
> > use of the word trick as one of defending the entire email, which is
> > of course laughable.
>
> Yes, I know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be honest about the use of
> the word.
>
> ---
>
> - Show quoted text -
fair enough. Using the word trick does not definately mean dishonesty
in this case. I'm sure it is used innocently often times, even though
in this instance it was probably malicious.
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:43:28 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Since nobody claims that there's "undisputed science to prove global
>>>warming", your assertion is nothing but a straw man. The actual
>>>truth is that there is overwhelming consensus among climatologists
>>>that global warming is highly probable and that it's highly probable
>>>that human activity contributes to it. Can you see the difference?
>>>
>>
>>I would tell you that you need to erase the phrase "overwhelming
>>consensus" when speaking about a scientific issue.
>>
>>The term "consensus" itself applies to politics, not science.
>
>I can't imagine where you got that idea from. The term can apply to
>any number of areas, science included.
It's not as if the idea originated with me.
It's the idea that scientific issues have to be proved or disproved by
the data from experiments, and not settled by a vote of those for or
against.
Pepe Papon
<bust.ed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Challenge to you. �Show me some examples where the word trick is used as
>> >it is in your copy and paste quote. �Since it is so common you should be
>> >able to produce 5 today right. �I would bet you but your alter ego is
>> >defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
>>
>> >Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
>>
>> Challenge to you. �Since you're the one disputing the content of the
>> cite, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the scientist is
>> lying about the use of the word "trick". � But since he's telling the
>> truth, such a proof would be quite a trick.
>> --
>> � � � �~ Seth Jackson
>>
>> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
>> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Please explain the words "hide the decline". That is where the damning
>content is in that email.
It was explained in the link provided by Ramashiva.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:47:12 -0800, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:43:28 -0600, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Since nobody claims that there's "undisputed science to prove global
>>>>warming", your assertion is nothing but a straw man. The actual
>>>>truth is that there is overwhelming consensus among climatologists
>>>>that global warming is highly probable and that it's highly probable
>>>>that human activity contributes to it. Can you see the difference?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I would tell you that you need to erase the phrase "overwhelming
>>>consensus" when speaking about a scientific issue.
>>>
>>>The term "consensus" itself applies to politics, not science.
>>
>>I can't imagine where you got that idea from. The term can apply to
>>any number of areas, science included.
>
>It's not as if the idea originated with me.
>
>It's the idea that scientific issues have to be proved or disproved by
>the data from experiments, and not settled by a vote of those for or
>against.
If only life were that simple. In a complex field like climatology
where certainty does not exist and conclusions are expressed as
probabilities, there is no such thing as proof or disproof by a single
experiment. Scientists can disagree on unproven theories. In such
cases, consensus among scientists is the best we have to go on.
garycarson
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:09:04 -0800 (PST), Brandii
> <bust.ed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Challenge to you. �ｿｽShow me some examples where the word trick is used as
> >> >it is in your copy and paste quote. �ｿｽSince it is so common you should be
> >> >able to produce 5 today right. �ｿｽI would bet you but your alter ego is
> >> >defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
> >>
> >> >Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
> >>
> >> Challenge to you. �ｿｽSince you're the one disputing the content of the
> >> cite, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the scientist is
> >> lying about the use of the word "trick". �ｿｽ But since he's telling the
> >> truth, such a proof would be quite a trick.
> >> --
> >> �ｿｽ �ｿｽ �ｿｽ �ｿｽ~ Seth Jackson
> >>
> >> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
> >> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide
quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >Please explain the words "hide the decline". That is where the damning
> >content is in that email.
>
> It was explained in the link provided by Ramashiva.
No, it wasn't.
The totality of those emails makes what's going on very, very clear (to me
anyway).
These are guys who are so committed to a theory that they engage in all
sorts of psychological self-delusion to ignore or explain away any
observed discrepancies between actual observations and their model.
Rather than being willing to go through the hard work of actually
questioning the specifics of their model they engage in verbal and
graphical manipulation to convince themselves that the discrepancies
aren't important.
That doesn't mean that their basic conclusions about global warming are
wrong, but it does strongly suggest that they've lost all ability to
actually look at things as dispassionate scientists.
It's not unusual behavior, it's actually fairly typical of human behavior.
------�ｿｽ
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
BTSinAustin
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:09:04 -0800 (PST), Brandii
> <bust.ed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Challenge to you. �ｿｽShow me some examples where the word trick is used as
> >> >it is in your copy and paste quote. �ｿｽSince it is so common you should be
> >> >able to produce 5 today right. �ｿｽI would bet you but your alter ego is
> >> >defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
> >>
> >> >Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
> >>
> >> Challenge to you. �ｿｽSince you're the one disputing the content of the
> >> cite, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the scientist is
> >> lying about the use of the word "trick". �ｿｽ But since he's telling the
> >> truth, such a proof would be quite a trick.
> >> --
> >> �ｿｽ �ｿｽ �ｿｽ �ｿｽ~ Seth Jackson
> >>
> >> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
> >> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide
quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >Please explain the words "hide the decline". That is where the damning
> >content is in that email.
>
> It was explained in the link provided by Ramashiva.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
> Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
No it wasn't explained. All it did is focus on the word trick.
Why are you so afraid to even consider that global warming is exaggerated?
Science is all about doubting and re-checking others work. I have said
all along I am not on one side or the other. But I am open minded. And
of course love to taunt the puppet master. The great angel of death, pic
bellow.
"You had better believe that there is no scarier sight on Earth than the
sight of Ramashiva transformed into the Angel of Death."
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2735/4129434416_6fd338d387.jpg
_____________________________________________________________________�ｿｽ
FL Turbo
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:47:23 -0800, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:09:04 -0800 (PST), Brandii
>><bust.ed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >Challenge to you. �Show me some examples where the word trick is used as
>>>> >it is in your copy and paste quote. �Since it is so common you should be
>>>> >able to produce 5 today right. �I would bet you but your alter ego is
>>>> >defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
>>>>
>>>> >Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
>>>>
>>>> Challenge to you. �Since you're the one disputing the content of the
>>>> cite, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the scientist is
>>>> lying about the use of the word "trick". � But since he's telling the
>>>> truth, such a proof would be quite a trick.
>>>> --
>>>> � � � �~ Seth Jackson
>>>>
>>>> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
>>>> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>Please explain the words "hide the decline". That is where the damning
>>>content is in that email.
>>
>>It was explained in the link provided by Ramashiva.
I shall stifle myself from commenting on R's continuing belief in an
AGW consensus.
Evidently, you are new to the Global Climate issue.
I highly recommend the following web site, so you can investigate the
"rest of the story".
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
Now, this isn't a real scientific site, but rather an "aggregator",
with links to a lot of scientific and media reports.
It's much like the Instapundit site, which points to a wide variety of
other sites.
Of course, you have to bear in mind that it is mainly presents the
"denier" viewpoint.
The latest data dump of hacked emails and data has given a whole lot
of scientists the courage to come out of the closet and admit their
skepticism of the so called "consensus" viewpoint.
Here is their leadoff post today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protecting The IPCC Turf � There Are No Independent Climate
Assessments Of The IPCC WG1 Report Funded And Sanctioned By The NSF,
NASA Or The NRC � A Repost Of And Comment On A January 13 2009 post
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/protecting-the-ipcc-turf-%e2%80%93-there-are-no-independent-climate-assessments-of-the-ipcc-wg1-report-funded-and-sanctioned-by-the-nsf-nasa-or-the-nrc-a-repost-of-and-comment-on-a-january-13-2009/
With the perspective exposed in the publication of the e-mails from
the research group of Phil Jones this past week, the goal of a small
group of scientists to control the information communicated to
policymakers and the public is clearly illustrated in my post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can sympathize with you if you choose not to go there and follow any
of the links.
It can be very painful to have one's cherished opinions subjected to
skeptical analysis.
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole�
24 11 2009
Foreword: Willis asked me to carry this post here. What follows is a
long and detailed series of email exchanges that outline the difficult
task of getting data so that scientific replication/reproduction can
be done by people external to the tight knit group of scientists that
make up climate science today. This is a must read for anyone trying
to understand the issue and the dodges of the UK FOIA that CRU has
been doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A graphic entitled "The scientific method" is shown here on the
original website.
Please note that the word consensus does not appear anywhere.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
One of the foundational components of the scientific method is the
idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to
be considered valid it must be replicated. This process begins with
the scientists who originally performed the experiment publishing the
details of the experiment. This description of the experiment is then
read by another group of scientists who carry out the experiment, and
ascertain whether the results of the new experiment are similar to the
original experiment. If the results are similar enough then the
experiment has been replicated.
This process validates the fact that the experiment was not dependent
on local conditions, and that the written description of the
experiment satisfactorily records the knowledge gained through the
experiment.
CRU�s decision to withhold data and code from public inspection is not
only against the scientific method, given the impact their work has on
governmental policies and taxpayer funded programs, it is, in my
opinion, unethical. � Anthony Watts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, while I will grant you that controlled experiments are not
possible with the issue of climate, the method still relies on a
continual re-examination of data, and the methods used to come to a
scientifically valid conclusion.
Consensus still has no place in Science.
Did you get the part about data and code being available for public
viewing?
It isn't as if this was some private research, wherein the researchers
don't want to release their data to the general public and their
competitors.
This is a case of publicly funded collection of data that can be used
to set governmental policy.
The Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre at Climateaudit has been
waging a 10 year battle to try to pry original data out of the hands
of the elite few.
Even so, he was successful in getting enough data to debunk the famous
Hockey Stick curve that has been used over and over again to claim
unprecedented Global Warming in the 1990s.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents
everything better this time !
And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who
is trawling them.
The two MMs 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.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries
within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first
request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it -
thought people could ask him for his model code.
He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.
IPR should be relevant here,...
-------------------------------------
Excerpt from a Phil Jones email.
Tom Sr.
> I am not claiming to understand the science
And, guess what? You did NOT understand the science!
> but here are a few excerpts
> from the emails that make you wonder. Remember this is from a publicly
> funded university, not a private institution trying to protect IP rights.
> Very best quote
> “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trickof adding in the real temps to
> each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
> for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
How many of those Climate-Change deniers who are yelling "fraud" and
"scam" even KNOW what "Mike's Nature trick" means in scientific
terms?
It is blatantly obvious that you do not. Nor did you bother to look
this up. Nor, I strongly suspect, did you even *think* to look it up
to see what was meant.
But I have a good, solid background in science, so I *did* wonder what
that phrase referrred to.
**********
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=219789
What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this
evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy?
"Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature
patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998),
published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the
technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the
reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the
context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree
ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records
after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998,
suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature
in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in
Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence
problem. So when you look at Phil Jones' email in the context of the
science discussed, it is not the scheming of a climate conspiracy but
technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the
peer-reviewed literature.
Finally, just in case there are still people in this world who
actually read the links people share, even more information is
available here:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves
**********
You see like the rest of the deniers, you *failed* to realize this
email was a discussion of SCIENCE. Instead you foolishly just
*assumed* -- very wrongly -- that you understood what was meant --
when the simple truth is, you did NOT.
So the "trick" referred to in the email is *NOT* a trick at all, but
rather a decade-long established, science-based adjustment for the
fact that tree-rings [i.e. Mike's Nature] started in the 1960s to no
longer reflecting the more accurate temperature readings made by
modern equipment than were available in the past.
The truth is, you have Nothing. Like, duh.
"Climategate"? Ha ha.
-Tom Sr.
BTSinAustin
> On Nov 23, 1:40�pm, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > I am not claiming to understand the science
>
> And, guess what? You did NOT understand the science!
Oh man you got me good there by agreeing with me. Ouch.
This was a response from the people in question. Big deal
>
> Finally, just in case there are still people in this world who
> actually read the links people share, even more information is
> available here:
>
> http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves
> **********
>
> You see like the rest of the deniers, you *failed* to realize this
> email was a discussion of SCIENCE. Instead you foolishly just
> *assumed* -- very wrongly -- that you understood what was meant --
> when the simple truth is, you did NOT.
Try reading again. You are so paranoid you think I am a denier. All I am
doing is helping make Ramashiva look even dumber. I have said all along I
have no opinion. The only reason I kept posting is he did not read my
first post but assumed I was a right wing wacko and took off from there.
Kinda like what you did.
>
> So the "trick" referred to in the email is *NOT* a trick at all, but
> rather a decade-long established, science-based adjustment for the
> fact that tree-rings [i.e. Mike's Nature] started in the 1960s to no
> longer reflecting the more accurate temperature readings made by
> modern equipment than were available in the past.
>
> The truth is, you have Nothing. Like, duh.
Good try.
> "Climategate"? Ha ha.
>
> -Tom Sr.
For someone claiming to be so smart, you have very poor reading
comprehension.
Science requires that results be questioned and verified. Religion does
not. Which one do you think you sound like a follower of?
"You had better believe that there is no scarier sight on Earth than the
sight of Ramashiva transformed into the Angel of Death."
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2735/4129434416_6fd338d387.jpg
-------�
FL Turbo
wrote:
Ooopsie.
I very carelessly omitted a link to the web site quoted above.
Here it is, for your viewing enjoyment.
garycarson
> On Nov 23, 1:40�ｿｽpm, "BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > I am not claiming to understand the science
>
> And, guess what? You did NOT understand the science!
>
> > but here are a few excerpts
> > from the emails that make you wonder. �ｿｽRemember this is from a publicly
> > funded university, not a private institution trying to protect IP rights.
> > Very best quote
> > �ｿｽI�ｿｽve just completed Mike�ｿｽs Nature trickof adding in the real temps to
> > each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
> > for Keith�ｿｽs to hide the decline.�ｿｽ
>
> How many of those Climate-Change deniers who are yelling "fraud" and
> "scam" even KNOW what "Mike's Nature trick" means in scientific
> terms?
>
> It is blatantly obvious that you do not. Nor did you bother to look
> this up. Nor, I strongly suspect, did you even *think* to look it up
> to see what was meant.
>
> But I have a good, solid background in science, so I *did* wonder what
> that phrase referrred to.
>
> **********
> http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=219789
>
> What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this
> evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy?
Of course not.
It's also not evidence of termites.
But it is evidence of researchers who are no longer dispassionate
observers but have become devotees to a pet theory and are suffering from
all sorts of availability bias in their data analysis.
>
> "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature
> patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998),
> published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the
> technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the
> reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the
> context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
So what?
-------�ｿｽ
Jerry Sturdivant
And the earth keeps warming .......
garycarson
> And the earth keeps warming .......
Maybe it is, but it's not as clear as you seem to think.
The guys who wrote those emails are not very reliable, I don't care what
degrees they have.
_____________________________________________________________________�
Clave
news:l981u6...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 25 2009 6:38 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>
>> And the earth keeps warming .......
>
> Maybe it is, but it's not as clear as you seem to think.
>
> The guys who wrote those emails are not very reliable, I don't care what
> degrees they have.
Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on
Climate Change, said the release of the e-mails will be
remembered mostly as as embarrassment to the researchers.
"It shows that the process of science is not always pristine,"
said Leiserowitz. "But there's no smoking gun in the e-mails
from what I've seen."
<...>
The e-mails may serve as good gossip in the halls at the
meeting, but will not play a big role otherwise, experts said.
For one thing, the researchers involved were only a handful
out of thousands across the world that have contributed to a
vast convergence of data that shows the world has warmed.
"Whilst some of the e-mails show scientists to be all too
human, nothing I have read makes me doubt the veracity of the
peer review process or the general warming trend in the global
temperature recorded," said Piers Forster, an environment
professor at the University of Leeds.
Analyst Book doesn't see it changing the debate in the U.S.
Congress where with few exceptions lawmakers have moved past
the issue of whether mankind was warming the planet.
Lawmakers reached that conclusion even before the U.N.'s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an assessment
by thousands of scientists around the world that concluded in
2007 that warming was real and more than 90 percent certain
that it was caused by man-made gases.
Pepe Papon
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>On Nov 25 2009 1:47 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:09:04 -0800 (PST), Brandii
>> <bust.ed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Challenge to you. �Show me some examples where the word trick is used as
>> >> >it is in your copy and paste quote. �Since it is so common you should be
>> >> >able to produce 5 today right. �I would bet you but your alter ego is
>> >> >defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
>> >>
>> >> >Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
>> >>
>> >> Challenge to you. �Since you're the one disputing the content of the
>> >> cite, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the scientist is
>> >> lying about the use of the word "trick". � But since he's telling the
>> >> truth, such a proof would be quite a trick.
>> >> --
>> >> � � � �~ Seth Jackson
>> >>
>> >> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
>> >> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide
>quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> >Please explain the words "hide the decline". That is where the damning
>> >content is in that email.
>>
>> It was explained in the link provided by Ramashiva.
>
>No, it wasn't.
I was definitely explained. The believability of the explanation is
another issue.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Pepe Papon
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Nov 25 2009 1:47 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:09:04 -0800 (PST), Brandii
>> <bust.ed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Challenge to you. �Show me some examples where the word trick is used as
>> >> >it is in your copy and paste quote. �Since it is so common you should be
>> >> >able to produce 5 today right. �I would bet you but your alter ego is
>> >> >defending welchers so let's just do it as an honor bet.
>> >>
>> >> >Surely someone of your vast intelligence can do this right?
>> >>
>> >> Challenge to you. �Since you're the one disputing the content of the
>> >> cite, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the scientist is
>> >> lying about the use of the word "trick". � But since he's telling the
>> >> truth, such a proof would be quite a trick.
>> >> --
>> >> � � � �~ Seth Jackson
>> >>
>> >> MySpace URL -http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
>> >> Songwriting and Music Business Info:http://www.sethjackson.net- Hide
>quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>> >
>> >Please explain the words "hide the decline". That is where the damning
>> >content is in that email.
>>
>> It was explained in the link provided by Ramashiva.
>> --
>> ~ Seth Jackson
>>
>> MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
>> Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
>
>
>No it wasn't explained. All it did is focus on the word trick.
I guess you missed that part that said:
---------------------
>As for the �decline�, it is well known
> that Keith Briffa�s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges
> from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known
> as the �divergence problem��see e.g. the recent discussion in this
> paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in
> Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always
> recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so
> while �hiding� is probably a poor choice of words (since it is
> �hidden� in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely
> appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
-----------------------
>Why are you so afraid to even consider that global warming is exaggerated?
> Science is all about doubting and re-checking others work. I have said
>all along I am not on one side or the other. But I am open minded.
Because most of the anti-global warming side of the argument comes
from oil industry-backed studies. Those who are anti-global warming
argue that we needn't take any action since global warming isn't a
certainty. That's an extremely dangerous argument.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>>>
>>>If only life were that simple. In a complex field like climatology
>>>where certainty does not exist and conclusions are expressed as
>>>probabilities, there is no such thing as proof or disproof by a single
>>>experiment. Scientists can disagree on unproven theories. In such
>>>cases, consensus among scientists is the best we have to go on.
>>
>>
>>
>>The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole�
>>24 11 2009
>> Foreword: Willis asked me to carry this post here. What follows is a
>>long and detailed series of email exchanges that outline the difficult
>>task of getting data so that scientific replication/reproduction can
>>be done by people external to the tight knit group of scientists that
>>make up climate science today. This is a must read for anyone trying
>>to understand the issue and the dodges of the UK FOIA that CRU has
>>been doing.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>A graphic entitled "The scientific method" is shown here on the
>>original website.
>>
>>Please note that the word consensus does not appear anywhere.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what you believe this is supposed to prove.
FL Turbo
wrote:
Okay.
I'll take another run at it.
Science advances by people advancing hypotheses, and then testing them
against experimentation and trying to see whether or not the data
supports their hypothesis.
It matters not how many people are either for or against the
hypothesis. (That would be consensus.)
The only thing that matters if the data collected matches the basic
hypothesis.
There is no point along the process wherein anything can be taken for
granted.
All the data needs be subjected to critical review and analysis.
One of the major points in this whole kerfuffle is that there is a
large amount of data that has been so far hidden from scientific
review.
Some of the most damning emails point out how some of the most basic
data has not been made available.
Here is one of the big AGW cahunas Phil Jones, in an email message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott.
Make sure he documents everything better this time !
And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who
is trawling them.
The two MMs 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.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries
within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first
request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it -
thought people could ask him for his model code.
He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR
should be relevant here,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As one Inet wiseguy observed, Phil Jones had better get "lawyered up"
very quickly.
FL Turbo
wrote:
While it may have been true at one time, it is no longer true that the
skepticism about the AGW hypothesis is due to massive support from the
oil industry.
Today, the amount of money being used to support the AGWs comes from
government funding, in an amount that dwarfs any spending by the oil
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation �that
public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientific-technological elite.�
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract
becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity�
�The prospect of domination of the nation�s scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present - and is gravely to be regarded.�
Stephen Jacobs
"Lab Rat" <robbie....@spin.net.au> wrote in message
news:6c7tt6x...@recgroups.com...
............
>
> No, it won't.
>
>> There is a very real danger that the climate system will run away at
>> that
> point.
>
> Lol. No, there isn't. For several reasons. Go educate yourself, then you
> can come back and retract this particular doomsday hogwash. Unless you're
> as dumb as Skillz, that is.
>
> Here, I'll even help:
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2007.hydrate_rev.pdf
> yw.
>
Ok, I read it. It is anything but reassuring. The most likely scenarios
involve methane releases with effects comparable to human greenhouse gas
releases. There is what we technically call "a shitload" of methane hydrate
on the continental shelves subject to release on a decades (serious problem)
to centuries (problem, but not so serious) timescale, and no particular
reason to favor one timescale or another. And the higher the methane
concentration of the atmosphere, the slower methane is removed (OH radical
production is limited).
Here's an example of the kind of reassurance I'd like to see better than
when the consequences are serious:
"The proximity of structural hydrate deposits to the waters of the ocean
allows them to be affected by anthropogenic warming without waiting
thousands of years for heat to diffuse into the sediment column (Fig. 3).
However, these deposits are still covered with hundreds of meters of ocean
water
Throughout most of the ocean, the stability depth is of order 500-700 m,
shoaling to perhaps 200m in the Arctic. Surface warming is expected to take
order a century to reach these depths. Presumably any melting response to
this gradual warming would be gradual as well, slower than the atmospheric
lifetime of methane and therefore by our definition a chronic methane
release rather than a catastrophic one."
garycarson
> "Lab Rat" <robbie....@spin.net.au> wrote in message
> news:6c7tt6x...@recgroups.com...
> .............
> >
> > No, it won't.
> >
> >> There is a very real danger that the climate system will run away at
> >> that
> > point.
> >
> > Lol. No, there isn't. For several reasons. Go educate yourself, then you
> > can come back and retract this particular doomsday hogwash. Unless you're
> > as dumb as Skillz, that is.
> >
> > Here, I'll even help:
> > http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2007.hydrate_rev.pdf
> > yw.
> >
>
> Ok, I read it. It is anything but reassuring.
LabRat is a chemist, highly trained to deal with chemical reactions in a
controlled enviroment. There is nothing in the typical training of a
chemist that suggests they'd know anything at all about the climate. But
they do know how to throw out big words and pretend they know what they're
talking about.
________________________________________________________________________�
Stephen Jacobs
>
> LabRat is a chemist, highly trained to deal with chemical reactions in a
> controlled enviroment. There is nothing in the typical training of a
> chemist that suggests they'd know anything at all about the climate. But
> they do know how to throw out big words and pretend they know what they're
> talking about.
>
So am I. Maybe that's why after taking a few pokes at each other we seem to
have settled into a degree of respect.
Of course I also took an intensive course in astronomy, but I got thrown off
assuming that heat transfer in Earth's atmosphere was more similar to heat
transfer in a stellar atmosphere than it actually is.
RichD
> These are guys who are so committed to a theory that they engage in all
> sorts of psychological self-delusion to ignore or explain away any
> observed discrepancies between actual observations and their
> model. Rather than being willing to go through the hard work of
> actually questioning the specifics of their model they engage in
> verbal and graphical manipulation to convince themselves that the
> discrepancies aren't important.
>
> That doesn't mean that their basic conclusions about global warming are
> wrong, but it does strongly suggest that they've lost all ability to
> actually look at things as dispassionate scientists.
>
> It's not unusual behavior, it's actually fairly typical of human behavior.
yep
Another myth is that scientists are immune to herd behavior.
--
Rich
FL Turbo
Supposedly, James Hanson of NASA started out as an astronomer.
Is it possible that he has that same problem?