To understand global warming and solutions, you have to have a strong education and experience in science and engineering. Most politicians are Lawyers. They would not understand anything let alone make decisions.
Yes, I did, ,but I have also read information that show's the “hockey stick” climate fraud, massive forcing of ground temperature data because of improper insturment placement, Dr. James Hansen who violated NASA's official position on climate forecasting without sufficient evidence and embarrassed the agency by airing his claims before Congress in 1988, and a who list of other bad data incdents from those who worship at the alter of AGW. Or how about this supposed screw up by NASA... Jared Sichel
You understand that nobody ever relied exclusively on the hocky stick right? And again, we come right back to the point that your opinion of the ground temperature data is irrelevant, because the satelite data was also provided, and the same trends were noted in the satelite data.
Never said that the ground data was irrelevant, what I am questioning is the source and accuracy of the data in the single blind study. Again there is a great amount of information now available that there was a large bias, (some of it was accidental, a lot of it intentional, and a lot of it was dogmatic), that the data was skewed.
No offense man, but I can't help but feel you're missing the point i'm trying to make regarding the data used in the single blind study (you [appeared to] state that the ground temp data was subject to selection bias through site location, my point was that the study also used the satelite data, and the same trends/statements were observed/made regarding that). Over and above anything else, regarding the study, you have access to the same information regarding it that I do. It is what it is, take it or leave it. If you want to use data bias as a reason to disregard it, go ahead.
To think mankind understands the climate systems at all, much less has solutions for them, is astoundingly naive.
Does this mean we can not do anything in our ignorance, such as make reduction in GHG's contribution to global warming? That is astoundingly simple minded and distructive POV. Let me illustrate: To think mankind understands the endocrine system {problems} at all, much less has solutions for them, is astoundingly naive. Does this mean we can not do anything in our ignorance, such as make birth control bills?
Scanning and perusing many "man made global climate change is a hoax" websites one can discern a parochial approach. What is required to fathom it is a global approach, a global outlook because the subject is not parochial climate change, instead it is global climate change.
A decent point there. My point was the old adage that you should watch carefully anyone who claims to understand something. It' almost always self-delusion or a deliberate ruse. All I'm saying in this thread is stay to the science, and watch it work it out. The stuff of CAGW is more a religion, a cult, than a body who is in any interested in hearing from anyone who isn't lock-step with them at this point. I've seen photographs showing the steady decline of the glaciers in 'Glacier National Park in Montana.I'm aware of that stuff. something is going on. The first thing I ruled out as a group working towards actual impartial science examining this stuff was the CAGW/IPCC crowd. It's hard to take them as anything more than a junk science clearinghouse that has politics at it's core issue. They will throw out most any junk and grab the headline, knowing the later withdrawal won't lesson the impact of the initial statement. The science people who aren't ideological that are pursuing this are methodically disproving or opening serious questions about the 'facts' that are thrown around so freely by the CAGW group. It'll take time but science will get root out and get rid of this manufactured ideological 'belief system'.
Some of the outright fraud and lying by the CAGW comes to light. Of course there is a lot more. I knew it was bullshit, I'm a tad surprised to know the IPCC/CAGW knew it was bullshit too, and conspired to keep it a secret. Now here's what going to be most hilarious. The mindless sheep who have been following and bleating out this nonsense will STILL continue to believe there is CAGW. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
More info: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked As more of this comes out: some of the email showing a deliberate altering and falsification of data and the like. I think finally this CAGW nonsense will have been shot down and real science can begin. And Al Gore will finally be revealed to be the PT Barnum I've known him to be all along.
No. Some inside baseball in the scientific community, where the actual opinions of the real scientists involved are recorded - and the shills from the "sceptic" community are described, together with their positions, in unflattering terms, and strategies for dealing with their media manipulations (such as their spamming of all these forums with this crap) are bluntly considered. Suck it up, guys. You've been talking like that in public, yourselves, for years now. Anyone who takes off after Al Gore has abandoned the scientific argument - for some reason.
Heres a link to the files if you want to review them yourself. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94 another link if above doesnt work: http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009 I am waiting for more info before deciding. So far some of whats been made available is damming. **NOTICE** I cannot guarentee 100% whether any issues of malware/viri/etc are contained in the downloads and people should be wary before opening these files. It is At Your Own Risk.
Unfortunately no-one can attest to the authenticity of these supposed emails - I smell a desperate fraud. Which is a shame - there is still considerable debate and scepticism in the scientific community over the cause, the extent, and the effects of climate change - stuff like this just muddies the waters.
Nothing that I've seen even begins to challenge the conventional wisdom (which is described well by patel above). Out of context quotes of attempts at PR dogfighting in the data presentation, accounts of mistaken arguments settled between various researchers, derisive descriptions of the "sceptic" crowd, I haven't seen any actual meat in this stuff.
They admit to this email (with explanation) and they only deny the accuracy because of the volume of released material. Steve McIntire (spelling?) has verified portions of his exchanges (regardless of whether you agree with his position or not). http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update Its real. I dont blame them for wanting to do damage control. Google it, theres lots of websites posting material. You can download it yourself if you want to verify accuracy but whats being reported is manipulation of data, efforts to remove skeptics (blacklisting), efforts to deny information via FOI, etc. Some of the quotes reported: From Phil Jones (witholding of data): The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! 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 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 Nick McKay (modifying data): The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you? Some of the emails go back to like 1996? so its 10+ years these things have been going on. Several of the websites give the exact txt doc number so you can look it up for yourself. Everyone says its a LOT of data to go through, (the zipped file is 60+MB) so I expect more to be revealed and discussed openly. I expect more from science than this, especially when they are trying to influence world governments.
I know you believes. I gave you several links to do your own research if you want to. It would be difficult for ALL these reports to be inaccurate with so many people having copies of the data. However, I am sitting on my download to see if something is hidden that checkers/scanners cant pick up yet.
I'm accepting all the reports as accurate, and the emails as genuine until further notice. (The people releasing this have invented before, lie often, and misrepresent routinely, so that's actually an issue, but a separate one from the argument). PR crap, irrelevant to the issues asserted as addressed. (Are we supposed to be shocked that researchers make mistakes, and correct them?)
A different take on the stolen data. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10611142 Context is everything.
Not climatologists? Why is it that the IPCC is full of Atmospheric Chemists, physicists, engineers, mathematicians...but not climatologists or meteorologists? And nothing that I've seen shows me C02 particle responses to radiation frequencies with associated albedo content. If they're this damned worried about the world ending...why don't they public source all of their findings like many international projects?
