But I wanted to believe it so badly!

[bushwacked]

Bushwanker, how do we go about determining the temperature 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago? What branch of science specializes in this? Is it the branch where more than half do not believe the earth is hotter now than it has been in the past?

 

Icecores, paleoclimatology, and petroleum geolgists were the ones at 47% in believing humans significantly attributed to GW.

Edited July 8, 2010 by bushwacked

[rattsass]

Bushwanker, how do we go about determining the temperature 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago? What branch of science specializes in this? Is it the branch where more than half do not believe the earth is hotter now than it has been in the past?

Exactly the question I want answered. It is a HUGE leap of faith to believe that this tiny speck on the timeline of the earth can conclusively damn mankind for a one degree temperature rise over the last hundred years. Child please!!!

[Azazello1313]

So this is where the word some impact, unlike the previous word significant; actually applies. Contrary to your statement, there is a rather large gap between what experts and the general public thinks. Furthermore, barely over 1 in 4 Repubs think some compared to 97% of experts thinking significant.

 

I believe you said that number was 82%, but hey what's a little number fudging when we're talking about the global warming swindle

 

and it's also probably relevant that the 82% poll was taken BEFORE all the CRU emails came to light, showing these "scientists" for the issue advocates they really are. probably a lot of scientists just trusted the methods of other scientists. when it is shown so nakedly that with most of these guys, the primary motivation was "making a case" rather than solving unanswered questions, a lot of that credibility is shot.

[bushwacked]

I believe you said that number was 82%, but hey what's a little number fudging when we're talking about the global warming swindle

 

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

 

and it's also probably relevant that the 82% poll was taken BEFORE all the CRU emails came to light

 

The same emails that 3 independent inquires found nothing substantial in Scientific conclusions? Or are you talking about something different now besides illegal hijacked emails that turned into nothing more than a failed right wing political ruse?

Edited July 8, 2010 by bushwacked

[Perchoutofwater]

The same emails that 3 independent inquires found nothing substantial in Scientific terms? Or you talking about something different now besides illegal hijakced emails that turned into nothing more than a failed right wing political ruse?

 

The inquires also stated that some of the answers to questions posed were not answered are given misleading answers. BTW, I guess if 3 independent groups such as Exxon/Mobile, Shell, and Chevron were to study the BP debacle and find no need for additional regulation, you would stand down on your cries for more regulation right?

Edited July 8, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[rattsass]

Since the GW crowd is so onboard with all this, I propose that all in that camp voluntarily pay double the amount that would be collected with Cap & Tax. Bushwacked can pay Perch's portion of the tax, and he will have no problem doing so since the very survival of the planet depends on it. That way, everybody is happy. The "sky is falling" crowd can pat themselves on the back every day for saving the planet, and the rest of us can keep the money we earn and burn in hell for our sins in the end. Everybody's happy!

[bushwacked]

The inquires also stated that some of the answers to questions posed were not answered are given misleading answers. BTW, I guess if 3 independent groups such as Exxon/Mobile, Shell, and Chevron were to study the BP debacle and find no need for additional regulation, you would stand down on your cries for more regulation right?

 

You mean the companies with all the global warming experts?

 

Kid Cid already covered this more eloquently than I.

 

And ID brought up this little nugget that seems to be getting conveniently dismissed.

Edited July 8, 2010 by bushwacked

[Vicster]

You mean the companies with all the global warming experts?

 

Kid Cid already covered this more eloquently than I.

 

Well, I've never tried any kind of research other than some testing of semi-conductor materials for Nasa back in 1991 at college as part of my scholarship. But I do know that when the government started allowing scientists to receive money from private corporations and being able to start up their own private companies based upon their research at a university and that the universities themselves are able to apply for and receive patents on their research developments that the degree to which scientific method can be corrupted is quite large.

 

Kid Cid cites that

"It isn't always pretty and often becomes politicized but the fact remains that when the dust settles, the truth of the matter will be arrived at."

 

That is an opinion and there is no basis of fact in his argument.

 

Has anyone seen the list of patents that universities hold?

 

Just a few

 

So, when a univeristy holds a patent on something, how is it distributed to the private sector? I'm unfamiliar with how that works and how a university is compensated for a patent they hold. Maybe kid cid could enlighten us on this. I hate calling kid cid out here on this and I will freely admit I am not a scientist nor have I ever done research at a level 1 university research center, but I just don't hold that scientists aren't ever tilted in a certain way because they do stand to benefit from it in some fashion.

[The Mucca]

It's hot here today, is the world coming to an end tonight?

[The Irish Doggy]

You mean the companies with all the global warming experts?

 

Kid Cid already covered this more eloquently than I.

 

And ID brought up this little nugget that seems to be getting conveniently dismissed.

 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good pwning.

[bushwacked]

Well, I've never tried any kind of research other than some testing of semi-conductor materials for Nasa back in 1991 at college as part of my scholarship. But I do know that when the government started allowing scientists to receive money from private corporations and being able to start up their own private companies based upon their research at a university and that the universities themselves are able to apply for and receive patents on their research developments that the degree to which scientific method can be corrupted is quite large.

 

Kid Cid cites that

"It isn't always pretty and often becomes politicized but the fact remains that when the dust settles, the truth of the matter will be arrived at."

 

That is an opinion and there is no basis of fact in his argument.

 

Has anyone seen the list of patents that universities hold?

 

Just a few

 

So, when a univeristy holds a patent on something, how is it distributed to the private sector? I'm unfamiliar with how that works and how a university is compensated for a patent they hold. Maybe kid cid could enlighten us on this. I hate calling kid cid out here on this and I will freely admit I am not a scientist nor have I ever done research at a level 1 university research center, but I just don't hold that scientists aren't ever tilted in a certain way because they do stand to benefit from it in some fashion.

 

 

While I certainly don't intend to answer for Kid Cid; I will address the point. No-one should claim the Scientific Method is infallible, it isn't. But as a whole, it is certainly much better than any other conceivable method of acquiring knowledge and putting together a coherent understanding in a workable and ever-changing fashion. At the end of the day, the rigors of the Scientific Method do speak for itself, it's the basis of advancing our technology and understanding in our world.

 

Do I doubt the human emotion or subconscious "pre-determinations" play a role? Of course not, while "beliefs" or perceptions play a role, they should, by and large, get filtered out throughout the legitimate process of the Method advancing. Every client that pays me to evaluate their Site, would like nothing more for me to come back and say it's crystal clean with no contamination. I have a vested interest in doing that; I surely could work out a deal of some sort, if I could convince a vast network of professionals, from different companies and/or agencies, to falsify information and trust no-one to ever come forward with the truth. Along with that premise being almost certainly inconceivable, for me it's nowhere near worth it; I would lose my professional accreditation and career for a risky large sum.

 

If Scientists purposely "corrupt" the process to a significant degree; they genuinely do have everything to lose. If the Climategate Scandal was genuinely real; those guys' careers would have ended. If the three independent inquires were rigged' everyone who served on them is going to lose their job. And that's why at the end of the day, you have to believe it's an incredible conspiracy and cover-up of almost unimaginable proportions, or trust the Science. I think choosing the latter is extremely more logical.

[bushwacked]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good pwning.

 

Werd.

[tazinib1]

It's hot here today, is the world coming to an end tonight?

 

 

Only in Ohio.

[driveby]

JULY 12, 2010.The Climategate Whitewash Continues

 

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews

 

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

 

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

 

Muir Russell

.Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."

 

No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

 

This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others—one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed. These two reviews also saw no evil. For example, Penn State "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."

 

Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

 

It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise."

 

Mr. Jones emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, "Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."

 

The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"

 

Then there's the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: "On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this."

 

Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.

 

But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

 

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

 

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

 

Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.

 

Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

 

WSJ

[westvirginia]

Keep repeating the big lie and silence dissent. Adoph and Josef illyich would be sooooo proud!

[WaterMan]

If the Climategate Scandal was genuinely real; those guys' careers would have ended. If the three independent inquires were rigged' everyone who served on them is going to lose their job. And that's why at the end of the day, you have to believe it's an incredible conspiracy and cover-up of almost unimaginable proportions, or trust the Science. I think choosing the latter is extremely more logical.

 

There are so many conspiracy theories now days I don't know which to pull for.

[Ursa Majoris]

Keep repeating the big lie and silence dissent. Adoph and Josef illyich would be sooooo proud!

I thought only the Tea Party and Rush Limbaugh's ilk jumped straight to Hitler / Stalin comparisons. Evidently not.

[westvirginia]

I thought only the Tea Party and Rush Limbaugh's ilk jumped straight to Hitler / Stalin comparisons. Evidently not.

 

Ursa, you know the history well enough to know that's where it started. That's the only reason they were brought up - it's not like these particular people have any gov't clout to take anything from me at the point of a gun. Jump down off your high-horse (but be careful - don't break a hip!).

[rattsass]

Can't we all get together somewhere between Stalin and Hitler? Are the extremes the only choices in politics any more. Sure seems that way.

[bushwacked]

no, you're full of crap for thinking that only goes one way.

 

While the debate on the validity of GW is primarily a Scientific matter; it's also political in nature for obvious reasons. I'm not in denial, I know the political rhetoric goes both ways, however, is glaringly obvious that the lack of understanding of the Scientific Method and degree/volume of political rhetoric is on one side.

 

Schtick like this:

 

Keep repeating the big lie and silence dissent. Adoph and Josef illyich would be sooooo proud!

 

is a strong testament to the validity of my statement.