^ Do you honestly think DaBird and his ilk care about honesty or truth? His goal is to mock anything that doesn't support the right-wing Christian American perspective.

12/18/2009 11:27:44 AM

The copenhagen summit is about wealth distribution, nothing else.

12/18/2009 1:35:15 PM

good article in the WSJ today:

Quote :

"How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should know. By PATRICK J. MICHAELS "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

12/18/2009 2:06:32 PM

Quote :

"Here's a copy of the proposal submitted by the US, UK, and AU: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/images/091218_cop15_declaration.pdf The US won't be paying $100b a year."

oh I must have misunderstood what I heard. that makes more sense.

Quote :

"^ Do you honestly think DaBird and his ilk care about honesty or truth? His goal is to mock anything that doesn't support the right-wing Christian American perspective. "

you know what? fuck yourself. dont pigeon hole me. I wasnt mocking anything. I was expressing frustration and seeingly endless line political interest groups have at our coffers.

what you fucking moonbats fail to understand is that practically NOBODY, including myself, thinks dirtying the Earth is a good idea. we all want a clean place to live. we all want to save endangered animals. we just want good science behind the findings and not to be dictated to by the world's socialist douchebag have nots. this summit is about railing against the evils of capitalism and about taking from the nations who actually contribute to the world in a positive manner and giving to those that dont.

its actually a shame that people who really, truly care about the environment get tossed in with those with a political or ideological agenda. its the same re-distribution of wealth cluster-fuck we constantly see from the far left. nothing more.

12/18/2009 2:26:44 PM

Quote :

"The dangers of the continuing stalemate in Copenahgen were powerfully illustrated yesterday by documents leaked yesterday by the U.N. conference secretariat here. The documents showed that the proposed emissions cuts currently on offer in Copenhagen—not only from the U.S. but all countries—come nowhere to preventing catastrophic climate change. According to the leaked document, which the secretariat confirmed is authentic, the current proposals will lead to 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) of temperature rise over the pre-industrial level in which civilization developed. Obama and other leaders of the Group of 8 rich industrial nations agreed in July to limit temperature rise to 2 Celsius, and even that is hardly a safe level. “It will mean 100 feet of sea level rise,” Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the chief climate adviser to the German government, said of the 2 degree limit. “True, this will be over the next thousand years, but that amounts to ten feet per century and this will be all but irreversible. A 2C temperature rise will also mean the loss of the Himalayan glaciers and coral reefs. What really makes for sleepless nights is the possibility that [2C] will … trigger runaway global warming.”"

From an article in Vanity Fair about the Summit. LOL, what a bunch of scaremongering bullshit.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/copenhagen-alert-obamas-speech-flops-summit-in-crisis.html

12/18/2009 2:30:10 PM

^^^good read

12/18/2009 7:17:05 PM

Quote :

"President Obama said the US, China, Brazil, India and South Africa had "agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2C and, importantly, to take action to meet this objective". He added: "We are confident that we are moving in the direction of a significant accord." "The meeting has had a positive result, everyone should be happy," said Xie Zhenhua, the head of China's delegation. "After negotiations both sides have managed to preserve their bottom line. For the Chinese, this was our sovereignty and our national interest." Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, speaking on behalf of the G77-China group of nations, reacted angrily to the developments. "Gross violations have been committed today - against the poor, against traditions of transparency and participation on an euqal footing by all nations, and against common sense," he said. But he stopped short of saying G77 nations would oppose any deal. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8421935.stm

12/18/2009 8:08:02 PM

Excellent. Now they are talking targets that can be met. 2C? Easy, the Freakanomics people explained how to enforce that rule without violating the laws of nature.

12/18/2009 10:26:20 PM

Quote :

"So this is why the right has been trying to tear down science for the past 8 years?"

it isn't the right who have been "tearing down science" dude.

12/19/2009 11:00:19 AM

marginalizing science?

12/19/2009 12:00:41 PM

^^^lol exactly, I love it. I am super impressed that the world leaders have the power to limit warming to "2 degrees".

Good for them!

12/19/2009 1:45:05 PM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980
AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

12/19/2009 9:29:38 PM

Quote :

"E-mail furor doesn't alter evidence for climate change By Michael E. Mann"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html

12/20/2009 9:13:12 AM

^Unless it comes from one of their bloggers, they won't believe any of it.

12/20/2009 11:05:13 AM

^ the notable thing about that editorial is that it was written by Mann himself.

12/20/2009 12:22:47 PM

Michael Mann is not particularly credible. From what I've seen, he is one of the worst ones when it comes to manipulating statistics and stonewalling his critics.

12/20/2009 4:30:33 PM

He lost his credibility almost a decade ago, what is the significance of that opinion piece?

12/20/2009 9:30:32 PM

Quote :

"AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty"

too bad that article has already been eviscerated. here, even!

Quote :

"E-mail furor doesn't alter evidence for climate change"

Because if there is one guy that I will believe on this stuff, it's the guy that created a computer program that produces a hockey stick when you plug in stock market data.

12/20/2009 10:54:25 PM

Lol, "eviscerated?" What? You provided an editorial full of baseless assertions and tired denier talking points by a chrisitan non-scientist hack that has discredited nothing essential about the AP analysis. He has little idea what he is talking about and it is clear throughout the article. It is not even worth time to address the content, hence why it was ignored by everyone.

12/21/2009 2:37:04 AM

And regarding the editorial by Patrick J. Michaels, given his reputation, his assessment of the emails is entirely predictable and also entirely questionable.

You know, its amazing the deniers still hold on to their beliefs as the rest of the world is already in the process of taking action on global warming.

What do you hope to accomplish at this point by trying to spread conspiracy theories? The body of global warming evidence is not going to be taken down by that. The science is just not in your favor. Wouldn't it be more contructive to accept it at some level and be a part of the process?


[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 4:10 AM. Reason : .]

12/21/2009 3:53:29 AM

Quote :

"its amazing the deniers still hold on to their beliefs as the rest of the world is already in the process of taking action on global warming"

Quote :

"I don't have a scientific background, if that wasn't obvious, so I can't debate the science in depth"

12/21/2009 4:23:18 AM

Just some light Christmas reading for some of you:

No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008

Dr. David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Quote :

"1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it."

Quote :

"2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None."

Quote :

"3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980)."

Quote :

"4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon."

Quote :

"None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Study: West Antarctic Melt a Slow Affair
March 18, 2009

Quote :

"Over all, the loss of the West Antarctic ice from warming is appearing 'more likely a definite thing to worry about on a thousand-year time scale but not a hundred years,' Dr. [David] Pollard [of Penn State] said."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/study-west-antarctic-melt-a-slow-affair/

Study Halves Prediction of Rising Seas
May 14, 2009

Quote :

"A new analysis halves longstanding projections of how much sea levels could rise if Antarctica's massive western ice sheets fully disintegrated as a result of global warming."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/science/earth/15antarctica.html

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor
February 20, 2009

Quote :

"A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
March 19, 2008

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE

Al Gore's melting Arctic claim unites scientist and sceptic alike
December 16, 2009

Quote :

"Wieslaw Maslowski, a climatologist at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, on whose work Mr Gore based his claim that there is a 75 per cent chance that the North Pole will be completely ice-free within five to seven years, said that this was a misrepresentation of the information he had provided to Mr Gore's office."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6958290.ece

Quote :

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

--Al Gore, May 2006

http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
Last updated: December 16th, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/yf9vc2c

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 4:43 AM. Reason : .]

12/21/2009 4:33:44 AM

SHIT IS COLD

MAKE IT HOT

COLD IS HOT

GLOBAL WORMING

MARS IS HOT

12/21/2009 4:57:03 AM

Quote :

"You know, its amazing the deniers still hold on to their beliefs as the rest of the world is already in the process of taking action on global warming."

ORLY? So what about New Zealand rejecting carbon legislation earlier this year? What about carbon legislation failing and being rejected in Australia this year (a country that was years ahead of us in establishing carbon regulation to begin with). Or increasing negative sentiments over carbon regulation in Europe (esp. with their failed carbon trading market).

And don't forget the African nations, who merely see this is a way to get billions of dollars from naive and sympathetic "western" countries

12/21/2009 9:49:54 AM

Do you think rejections of cap-and-trade legislation in Australia and Europe is a rejection of global warming science, and is some kind of validation for your side? You're an idiot. And cap-and-trade legislation does not encompass the actions being taken.

Hey Tree, you should reconsider trolling someone about their scientific background considering you're a cellphone salesman.

12/21/2009 11:11:17 AM

It most definitely is an indication that the tide is turning. If you think otherwise YOU'RE THE IDIOT.

12/21/2009 11:32:38 AM

Would you like to support that assertion? I challenge you to do so without opinion blogs full of more unsupported claims from sketchy people.

The indications are that it is an issue of money, and has little to do with the validity of the science.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/01/tech/main5856591.shtml

12/21/2009 11:49:33 AM

Quote :

"Hey Tree, you should reconsider trolling someone about their scientific background considering you're a cellphone salesman."

Lol cellphone salesman. I did study climate science throughout college, whereas you admit to have no knowledge of it whatsoever.

How about you just go back to blindly accepting AGW without knowing anything about it, and keep your ignorance out of this thread. None of your posts have anything to do with climate change anyway, just your retarded perceptions of something you know nothing about.

You might want to stick to posting in the Inconvenient Truth thread since thats a lot more casual and made for people like you who don't know shit.

I wouldn't be "trolling" you if you didn't constantly bring the dumb in this thread. Don't try to blame me for your ignorance.

12/21/2009 12:15:27 PM

^^it's a two step process. People blindy believe in "Global Warming" until the realize how much it will cost them. Then they look into the science b/c they're concerned about their economic well being. And then (some of these people) realize it's a bunch of crap.

12/21/2009 12:38:00 PM

Quote :

"Lol, "eviscerated?" What? You provided an editorial full of baseless assertions and tired denier talking points by a chrisitan non-scientist hack that has discredited nothing essential about the AP analysis. He has little idea what he is talking about and it is clear throughout the article. It is not even worth time to address the content, hence why it was ignored by everyone."

Nice ad hominem. no wonder you don't understand why science doesn't care about consensus.

Quote :

"And regarding the editorial by Patrick J. Michaels, given his reputation, his assessment of the emails is entirely predictable and also entirely questionable."

Oh, look, more ad hominem! good work, man!

Quote :

"What do you hope to accomplish at this point by trying to spread conspiracy theories?"

What do you hope to accomplish by ad hominem and strawmen?

Quote :

"The indications are that it is an issue of money, and has little to do with the validity of the science. "

Truer words have never been spoken. Now, which side has all the money on it?

12/21/2009 6:09:13 PM

^^^I don't have a scientific background. That does not mean I have no formal scientific training or knowledge of science or of global warming. It means I'm not a scientist. I suspect that's true for most people here, including yourself.

Our backgrounds are largely irrelevant anyway. It's not like we're producing any of the science that has been up for debate here, or really debating the science in depth. The deniers bring blog editorials and talking points and conspiracy theories and hold them as gospel. I debunk them the best I can using credible sources, and provide more science.

I look back at his thread and you have mostly been a dumbass and a troll.

12/21/2009 6:12:43 PM

^^Yeah, it's not ad hominem. The backgrounds of the people making those arguments is completely relevant. And I am not saying their arguments are not valid because of their backgrounds. I am saying there is reason to question the aspects of their arguments that demand our trust.

12/21/2009 6:20:12 PM

ad hominem means attacking the person and not the argument. learn what you are talking about, dude. It's also funny how much you complain about "blogs" without actually addressing their points, either. that is an appeal to authority, as if the "bloggers," many of whom you label so without merit and who often have quite substantial scientific credentials, bear absolutely no credibility and their arguments are merit-less. You practically refuse to hear any argument that doesn't come from the pro-AGW side of the house, yet that is what you accuse opponents of doing.

12/21/2009 6:22:53 PM

Actually, not quite.

"The term ad hominem has sometimes been used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks"

"Ad hominem is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

Quote :

"You practically refuse to hear any argument that doesn't come from the pro-AGW side of the house,"

Because I've seen it all before. It's denier talking points and conspiracy theories that have either been debunked or shown to have no merit by credible sources.

[Edited on December 21, 2009 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2009 6:27:27 PM

Quote :

"It's denier talking points and conspiracy theories that have either been debunked or shown to have no merit by credible sources. "

In other words, "there is no debate"

Tell me what exactly you're bringing to the table in this thread? I've been posting in TSB about climate change for as long as I've been posting in TSB, and I'm still on the fence. You on the other hand are dead-set in your ways that "there is no debate". How can you call me a troll when you aren't even willing to listen to both sides of the issue? You're flat out saying that anything that doesn't support AGW is a conspiracy theory that has been debunked. Even leaked emails that show manipulation of data don't seem to phase your opinion one bit.

Tell me why you keep posting ITT.

Quote :

"You'll find any excuse to distrust anyone that says something you don't agree with."

Its hilarious that you of all people posted this comment, in this thread. It sums up your perspective on climate change perfectly.

12/21/2009 6:39:42 PM

84% of scientists accept human-caused global warming. I think it's a reasonable assumption that most of the remainder accept global warming due to natural causes, with a small percentage who do not accept any warming (likely making up the denier blogosphere). How can anyone say there is legitimate debate whether global warming exists?

12/21/2009 6:53:02 PM

Quote :

"How can anyone say there is legitimate debate whether global warming exists?"

*carlface*

12/21/2009 6:54:57 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2009/12/20/gps.podcast.12.20.cnn

12/21/2009 10:33:32 PM

^That's a brilliant guy who makes lots of good points, and has some radical and clever ideas.

. . .

Quote :

"Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN), the weekly newsmagazine of the world's largest scientific society, today published a major analysis of the divisive issues at the heart of the debate over global warming and climate change. "

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/12/21/into.heart.climate.debate

12/21/2009 11:34:20 PM

Quote :

" You on the other hand are dead-set in your ways that "there is no debate". How can you call me a troll when you aren't even willing to listen to both sides of the issue? You're flat out saying that anything that doesn't support AGW is a conspiracy theory that has been debunked. Even leaked emails that show manipulation of data don't seem to phase your opinion one bit."

Okay, I read this and replied in a hurry before. Now that I have some time...

All I am saying there is no legitimate debate whether global warming exists. Obviously there is still some debate whether it is anthropogenic, otherwise it would be a lot more than 84% who accept it. Burro and a few others won't even concede that there is warming at all as far as I know. They seem to think the whole thing is a conspiracy, even though there is nothing to support that other than conjecture and paranoia. I'm not even really sure what their position is though. It just seems to be contrarian to any science or any source that supports global warming, and beyond that it's the same denier talking points that they parrot from blogs, like these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

I'm willing to hear things, but most of the shit posted here is editorial blogs. Find something something more credible than that, more substantive! Even when there is something substantive from a blog, I see another blog countering it, so I don't know who to believe. You can read my issues with blogs on the top of p 37. It isn't fair to say I reject anything anti-AGW when the only thing posted are bullshit blogs. I reject bullshit blogs, not anti-AGW points of view. Btw, notice I don't post blogs to support myself?

The emails don't show manipulation of data. I've looked at them myself, read assessments of them by credible sources, including the AP, and there has been nothing to indicate that. Further, there are other data sets from completely seperate entities that corroborate the UEA's data. Don't take my word for it, this has all been posted here.

The only thing that may have occured that I have an issue with is denying access to data, which is unprofessional but does not present any reason to doubt the evidence for global warming.

12/22/2009 1:25:57 AM

Quote :

"84% of scientists accept human-caused global warming."

carzak

This statement seems to imply that those scientists also accept the Gorian "solutions" being proposed. But there are a variety of positions being taken by those opposing the so-called consensus:

Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased

Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable
Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Believe cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

Believe global warming will not be significantly negative
Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment.

http://tinyurl.com/2jorjm

12/22/2009 4:34:58 AM

Quote :

"All I am saying there is no legitimate debate whether global warming exists."

And I would say that even that is false.

Quote :

"Actually, not quite."

Actually, yes. Are you attacking the argument? No. Are you attacking the person? Yes. That's ad hominem.

Quote :

"The only thing that may have occured that I have an issue with is denying access to data, which is unprofessional but does not present any reason to doubt the evidence for global warming."

But they are denying access to more than just data. They deny access to programs and methodology, too. That makes one wonder why. They also have hijacked the peer-review process in order to keep out any one who disagrees with them. Don't you think that might have an affect on your supposed 84% agreement?

Quote :

"The emails don't show manipulation of data."

No, but other things absolutely do. Did you even bother to look at the Darwin station, where they took a relatively flat raw data and turned it in to a 6C rise in temperatures? Did you even bother to look at New Zealand, where they have a similar scenario? Have you even bothered to note how no adjustments are made to obvious warm biases in the US temperature record? Have you even bothered to note how no adjustments are made for cold-station-dropout? Have you even bothered to note how the US REMOVED a scientifically accepted adjustment for UHI?

Quote :

"I've looked at them myself, read assessments of them by credible sources,"

Oh, so you mean sources that agree with you. Got it.

Quote :

"You can read my issues with blogs on the top of p 37."

And I've already countered that. It's a blatant appeal to authority when it is clear the "authority" has manipulated the process of who can be an "authority." You absolutely refuse to listen to the points made, or even counter them. If a blog posts that 2+2=4, does that make it wrong?

12/23/2009 11:36:50 AM

Ah, now even the leftist newsletter Counterpunch is seeing the light!

Quote :

"Turning Tricks, Cashing In on Fear By ALEXANDER COCKBURN In the early 1970s the UN spearheaded the progressive notion of a new world economic order, one that would try to level the playing field between the First World and the Third. The neoliberal onslaughts gathering strength from the mid-1970s on destroyed that project. Eventually the UN, desperate to reassert some semblance of moral leadership, regrouped behind the supposed crisis of climate change as concocted by the AGW lobby, behind which lurk huge corporate interests such as the nuclear power companies. Radicals from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, putting forward proposals for upping the Third World’s income from its primary commodities, were displaced by climate shills in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC. The end consequence, as represented by Copenhagen’s money-grubbing power plays over “carbon mitigation” funding, has been a hideous travesty of that earlier vision of a global redistribution of resources. Such is the downward swoop of our neoliberal era. In Oslo Obama went one better than Carter who, you may recall , proclaimed in 1977 that his crusade for energy conservation was “the moral equivalent of war.” Obama trumped this with his claim that war is the moral equivalent of peace. As he was proffering this absurdity, Copenhagen was hosting its global warming jamboree, surely the most outlandish foray into intellectual fantasizing since the fourth-century Christian bishops assembled for the Council of Nicaea in 325AD to debate whether God the father was supreme or had to share equal status in the pecking order of eternity with his Son and with the Holy Ghost. Shortly before the Copenhagen summit the proponents of anthropogenic – human-caused - global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistleblower who put on the web over a thousand emails either sent from or received at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia headed by Dr Phil Jones, who has since stepped down from his post – whether temporarily or permanently remains to be seen. The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling, a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons. Coolers transmuted into warmers in the early 80s and the CRU became one of the climate modeling grant mills supplying the tainted data from which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC ) has concocted its reports which have been since their inception – particularly the executive summaries -- carefully contrived political initiatives disguised as objective science. Soon persuaded of the potential of AGW theories for their bottom line, the energy giants effortlessly recalibrated their stance, and as of 2008 the CRU included among its financial supporters Shell and BP, also the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex Ltd, a company in the nuclear waste business. ..."

Sounds about right to me. This article is too long to post it all in here, but it's a good read.

http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn12182009.html

12/23/2009 12:37:46 PM

Will you slobbering dipshits shut up? How many people here are actual working scientists? From what I can tell this set includes myself and Wraith. There may be a few more. Who the fuck here has the credentials to discuss science, what it is, how it works, and how it should work?

12/23/2009 2:44:10 PM

Quote :

"You absolutely refuse to listen to the points made, or even counter them. If a blog posts that 2+2=4, does that make it wrong?"

You just don't get it. If people with questionable backgrounds make claims about something that I can't verify myself, I can't trust that those claims are true until I see them verified by other, preferrably more credible sources. The data or the claims provided are usually more complex than 2+2=4, and I don't always have the expertise to determine whether it's true. Moreover, I may not necessarily even know if their claim is a valid rebuttal to some aspect of global warming. But often times it falls into the same categories of things that have already been countered by other sources many times over. At which point I may or may not provide a source to counter it because I know it will be dismissed anyway.

But, why does it even matter if I or anyone here can't or won't rebut the points being made? It doesn't necessary mean those claims are valid.

Quote :

"They also have hijacked the peer-review process in order to keep out any one who disagrees with them."

If you think that every study supporting global warming is the result of a corrupt peer review process and has no credibility, it makes it impossible for anyone to provide any kind of evidence you will accept. Yet you will accept claims made in blogs written by questionable people and have not undergone peer review, or the rare study that is equally questionable due to ties to conservative think tanks and the oil undustry. You think the dominant mainstream side is corrupting the process and persecuting and repressing your side, while your side knows the "truth." This is the classic mindset of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

12/23/2009 5:12:20 PM

Quote :

"If you think that every study supporting global warming is the result of a corrupt peer review process and has no credibility"

I've said no such thing. It has, however, been shown that Mann and his ilk have pressured journals NOT to accept articles from people who disagree with him. Do you not see how such actions might affect the alleged consensus?

Quote :

"Yet you will accept claims made in blogs written by questionable people and have not undergone peer review, or the rare study that is equally questionable due to ties to conservative think tanks and the oil undustry."

Again, ad-fucking-hominem. Who funded the study is highly irrelevant to whether the study was valid. Jesus, dude. Besides, why is it that an oil-funded study is less valid than a carbon-trading-funded study? Do you REALLY think that there isn't big-money pushing from the other side as well?

Quote :

"You think the dominant mainstream side is corrupting the process and persecuting and repressing your side, while your side knows the "truth.""

I don't just "think" the process has been corrupted. it's been fucking PROVEN. wake the fuck up!

Quote :

"If people with questionable backgrounds make claims about something that I can't verify myself, I can't trust that those claims are true until I see them verified by other, preferrably more credible sources."

So, if all you are going to do is parrot what someone else says, then why even come in here and say anything? It's already been said. You add nothing new, and you fail to think for yourself or even try to be informed.


btw, shut the fuck up, McDouche. You are hardly a "scientist." You're a fucking math major, IIRC. And I am far more qualified to talk about the scientific method than you will ever even admit. Face it, refusing to release data and computer programs is not the hallmark of scientific ethics. I hope you can agree to that.

12/23/2009 10:50:16 PM

Quote :

"Will you slobbering dipshits shut up? How many people here are actual working scientists? From what I can tell this set includes myself and Wraith. There may be a few more. Who the fuck here has the credentials to discuss science, what it is, how it works, and how it should work?"

McDouche

Al Gore

BA in government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

IPCC Members

Quote :

"Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contributors

Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge

Quote :

"We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all. 'This is nonsense,' says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2. 'The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,' he says. 'Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.'"

http://tinyurl.com/29xdfj

[Edited on December 23, 2009 at 11:26 PM. Reason : Are you getting it now?]

12/23/2009 11:15:26 PM

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

12/23/2009 11:29:42 PM

why, yes, a poorly constructed strawman of arguments clearly wins the day!

12/23/2009 11:36:25 PM

Quote :

"I've said no such thing."

Then what do you mean by this?

"They also have hijacked the peer-review process in order to keep out any one who disagrees with them. "

The handful of scientists in those UEA emails aren't the only ones producing science. Nor could they themselves possibly control all of the science that is released.

So why do you reject everything that I provide here and more even though it usually comes from peer review journals?

What evidence have you ever accepted, or will you ever accept?

Quote :

"Yet you will accept claims made in blogs written by questionable people and have not undergone peer review"

Defend your inconsistent standards of evidence. Why do you trust blogs written by questionable people that aren't peer reviewed, but not peer-reviewed studies by scientific organizations that have no ties to the people in the emails, and have not been invloved in any wrongdoing that you know of? I know you don't always have the expertise or the resources to determine whether their claims are true, so you have to appeal to authority like the rest of us. So explain this inconsistency.

Quote :

"Who funded the study is highly irrelevant to whether the study was valid. "

I said they are questionable due to their ties. That isn't limited to who funded them, it includes the people who conduct the study and the journals that peer review it. Its kind of dubious when you have a forestry expert conducting a study on climate science and it's peer reviewed by a journal whose chief editor admits to being a denier. No, this doesn't necessarily mean their claims aren't valid, but since we don't have the expertise knowledge to be able to validate those claims, we have to appeal to their authority on the issue, which is questionable.

Quote :

"So, if all you are going to do is parrot what someone else says, then why even come in here and say anything? It's already been said. You add nothing new, and you fail to think for yourself or even try to be informed."

It's funny how much you project onto me. I post the latest significant studies relating to global warming, and any other related news. I think that keeps me pretty informed, but I guess since I don't also read your blogs that means I'm not trying. I also think that's informative to people who are intersted in the subject but may not have seen it themselves.

I'll ask you: Why do you post your blogs and editorials here?



[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 12:01 AM. Reason : .]

12/23/2009 11:58:13 PM