^ Do you take issue with InformationIsBeautiful.net?

12/24/2009 12:02:36 AM

"They also have hijacked the peer-review process in order to keep out any one who disagrees with them." is not the same as "If you think that every study supporting global warming is the result of a corrupt peer review process and has no credibility."

Quote :

"The handful of scientists in those UEA emails aren't the only ones producing science."

Of course not. But many of the papers of those scientists are quoted in many other studies and form the foundation of the science.

Quote :

"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 Why do you trust blogs written by questionable people that aren't peer reviewed, but not peer-reviewed studies by scientific organizations that have no ties to the people in the emails, and have not been invloved in any wrongdoing that you know of?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."

How about you explain calling people who fabricate hockey sticks and call that "science" credible. How can you say that someone who refuses to release his data and computer programs is in any way credible? How can you say that someone who asks his colleagues to delete data and emails is credible? How can you say that someone who cherry-picks 12 trees and then hides the fact that those trees fail to replicate current observations is credible?

Quote :

"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."

Why? Why is "being a denier" somehow making someone unqualified? you've already skewed the bounds of credibility to begin with!

but, hey, keep bitching about "blogs." Again, I suppose Richard Lindzen is just a blogger. Steve McIntyre is just a blogger. Moon is just a blogger.

12/24/2009 12:07:39 AM

And will you defend the opening video from the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38

It is an obvious appeal to emotion, which is a logical fallacy. Where is your science now?

12/24/2009 12:23:10 AM

Quote :

"How about you explain calling people who fabricate hockey sticks and call that "science" credible. "

Stop deflecting and trying to change the subject.

Quote :

"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."

Defend yourself, you pussy.

Quote :

"Of course not. But many of the papers of those scientists are quoted in many other studies and form the foundation of the science."

So this is basically why you don't trust global warming science. You think this handful of scientists has corrupted nearly everything, even though there is nothing to justify such a ridiculous position.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]

12/24/2009 12:52:20 AM

Quote :

"Stop deflecting and trying to change the subject. "

Bullshit. you claim that one side isn't credible, while ignoring the elephant in the room that shows that major proponents are equally lacking in scientific credibility. sounds like YOU are the one trying to change the subject.

Quote :

"So this is basically why you don't trust global warming science. You think this handful of scientists has corrupted nearly everything, even though there is nothing to justify such a ridiculous position."

This is called a "strawman." You are putting words in my mouth.

Quote :

"Defend yourself, you pussy."

Really? Really? grow the fuck up

12/24/2009 12:55:48 AM

Quote :

"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 involved 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 :

"This is called a "strawman." You are putting words in my mouth."

Then explain your exact position on global warming.

Quote :

"that major proponents are equally lacking in scientific credibility. "

Are you acknowledging that your side is lacking in credibility?

Quote :

"How about you explain calling people who fabricate hockey sticks and call that "science" credible."

Mann's hockey stick was valid. Ignoring every scientific and congressional body that found it to be valid doesn't make it untrue.

Quote :

"How can you say that someone who refuses to release his data and computer programs is in any way credible? How can you say that someone who asks his colleagues to delete data and emails is credible?"

A handful of scientist hiding data from deniers does not alone call into question or refute the body of evidence for global warming. The contributions from Michael Mann does not encompass the evidence for global warming. He is among thousands of scientists who have contributed science.

Now it's time for you to defend yourself.

Quote :

"Really? Really? grow the fuck up"

Hahaha. You repeated what I said, but ghost edited it out with this. Change your mind, eh? Grow up because I told you to defend yourself? Yet you say shit like "You make me wet."

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 1:42 AM. Reason : .]

12/24/2009 1:39:14 AM

Explain your exact position on global warming, and why. If there is not widespread plotting and corruption, what studies that support global warming do you accept and what don't you accept, if any, and why? If any, how many studies out of all do you think are valid?

12/24/2009 2:50:05 AM

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

Enjoy learning about the questionable aspects of Richard Lindzen's background for the first time.

And how about some more skeptic assertions and rebuttals:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 4:22 AM. Reason : ,]

12/24/2009 4:02:43 AM

Quote :

"Are you acknowledging that your side is lacking in credibility? "

No, I'm pointing out that you are bitching about a few people who disagree with you lacking credibility when you ignore the elephant in the room. Or, wait, "Are you acknowledging that your side is lacking in credibility?"

Quote :

"Mann's hockey stick was valid. Ignoring every scientific and congressional body that found it to be valid doesn't make it untrue."

REALLY? Care to back that one up with evidence? You might want to read the Wegman report, also a Congressional report. So, if I plug in the numbers from the stock market, and it tells me that temperatures are increasing, that's valid? Come on, there was NOTHING valid about that study, and you are an absolute idiot for even thinking about defending it. Hell, the stick tried to do away with historically accepted phenomena, such as the MWP and LIA.

Quote :

"A handful of scientist hiding data from deniers does not alone call into question or refute the body of evidence for global warming. The contributions from Michael Mann does not encompass the evidence for global warming. He is among thousands of scientists who have contributed science "

No, but this is the difference between a minor league player using a steroids and Barry Bonds using steroids. One is of far greater importance than the other. Mann is a major player in the global warming scene, and much of his work forms the basis of the field. How do you not understand this?


oh, look at you posting blogs! that will surely show me Nice try at smearing Lindzen, though. I liked it a lot.

12/24/2009 11:55:59 AM

You're a pathetic coward and a weasel. You won't even define your position on global warming. What are you afraid of? You know my position.

All you're doing is evading and rationalizing and projecting, and we both know why.

Quote :

"oh, look at you posting blogs!"

Yeah, they're not blogs, dumbass. One is a wiki, the other is a website (one of them has a blog though!) And both have references for everything. But continue to make excuses to shield your precious bloggers.

By the way, what happened to this:

Quote :

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

You asked me why I post here, and I answered honestly. What about you? Are you too afraid to answer this too? Is it because you'd have to admit you're just trolling?

By the way

Quote :

"No, I'm pointing out that you are bitching about a few people who disagree with you lacking credibility "

Pretty much every one of the people on your side has credibility issues. Even the ones you hold highly enough to mock me for questioning. And since there are only a few experts that make up the denier camp, that means a significant portion of your side has credibility issues.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/24/2009 1:20:59 PM

Quote :

"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."

I actually do neuroscience and computational statistics but HEY LET'S TALK OUT OF OUR ASSES LET'S BE AARONBURRO

You don't even understand what the goal of science is. You sound like a kid that took the introductory philosophy of science course at State and can't stop failing to parrot it correctly since.

One day I might drink a few bottles of Robitussin just to see what it's like to be only twice as smart as you

Quote :

"Al Gore BA in government"

Al Gore's an annoying, money-grubbing asshole. How many times do I have to say it?

re: the other stupid, asinine garbage you posted -- Where have you seen me defending any of these guys? Time after time I've said that I haven't been following the issue carefully or reading the journals. Therefore, I don't have an opinion on the matter to be honest. Every time you see me post something critical about you goons being clueless, you rush in here to go ZOMGA AL GORE; ZOMG WHATEVER HOOKSAW HEARD ON SEAN HANNITY. Don't give a shit. The only thing I have an opinion on when I read this thread is the hilariously stupid bullshit that people like aaronburro post about science in general.

12/24/2009 2:58:09 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, they're not blogs, dumbass. One is a wiki, the other is a website (one of them has a blog though!)"

ahahahahahaha. you really tried to say that with a straight face, didn't you? you are the one bitching about peer-review, peer-review, peer-review, blogs are bad, blogs are bad, blogs are bad, and then YOU POST A BLOG. A wiki is no better, dude.

Quote :

"Pretty much every one of the people on your side has credibility issues."

And that's an outright lie. PROVE this bullshit.

Quote :

"I actually do neuroscience and computational statistics"

Please forgive me for thinking that a douchebag with a MATH DEGREE had anything to do with science. You are a glorified calculator, nothing more, and you know it.

Quote :

"HEY LET'S TALK OUT OF OUR ASSES LET'S BE AARONBURRO"

You do it all the time, McDouche. I figure you would be used to it.

Quote :

"You don't even understand what the goal of science is."

Enlighten me, oh, great McDouche. Please, enlighten me on this.

Quote :

"Therefore, I don't have an opinion on the matter to be honest."

Well then, how bout you have a coke and a smile, and shut the fuck up!

12/24/2009 4:34:42 PM

Quote :

"Please forgive me for thinking that a douchebag with a MATH DEGREE had anything to do with science. You are a glorified calculator, nothing more, and you know it."

Actually, calculators run algorithms they don't invent them. In this respect, the computer I use is a glorified calculator. Sometimes I have to calculate things as well but my job mostly involves algorithm design. Not to mention, the algorithms are discovering causal relations in data, so what I'm doing has philosophical roots in questions of scientific methodology and inference.

If you want to get enlightened I can point you to reading materials.

12/24/2009 4:52:47 PM

^^You're utterly pathetic. You have been reduced to a childish, delusional, evasive coward.



[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ]

12/24/2009 5:06:31 PM

I prey for global warming everyday. I fucking hate cold weather.

12/24/2009 8:14:09 PM

^^ so, basically, you are admitting defeat. You bitched about blogs for 2 or 3 pages, and then posted shit from blogs. And a wiki.

12/26/2009 8:08:51 PM

eventually these people who think the earth is warming are just going to die unhappy when we keep prospering and the world doesnt warm at all. youve got no excuse to bring about your crazy plans for control. yes control. its not about helping peope its about control.

12/26/2009 8:25:17 PM

I haven't even looked at what you posted, HOOPS, but I will pre-emptively post a carl-face

12/26/2009 8:39:40 PM

I'm going to make a suggestion:

The Al Gore thing is a red herring. If Al Gore had never existed, this would still be an issue.

Let's argue the science and not act like the fact that he made a movie or says things distract from that, k?

12/26/2009 8:48:27 PM

^^Umm, based on what governments are trying to enact he's spot on. Why are you disagreeing?

12/28/2009 9:51:33 AM

^^ Except that's total bullshit.

Quote :

"Gore is the recipient of a number of awards including the Nobel Peace Prize (together with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 2007, a Primetime Emmy Award for Current TV in 2007, a Webby Award in 2005 and the Prince of Asturias Award in 2007 for International Cooperation. He also starred in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2007 and wrote the book An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, which won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in 2009."

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

Quote :

"Official site taking the message of 'An Inconvenient Truth' to Congress."

http://www.algore.com/

Gore is a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC--the main organization pushing the "science" of climate change. And Gore--who is not a scientist--uses his many accolades to bolster his political positions concerning climate change. I mean, when Gore appears before Congress concerning the environment, he's not just some guy--he's a Nobel laureate.

12/29/2009 5:17:59 AM

Al Gore say a thing

12/29/2009 8:37:33 AM

Build-a-Bear...really? Just another example of trying to indoctrinate the youth with lies.

Quote :

"Build-a-Bear issues apology on global warming videos Written by Kristin McMurray Monday, 28 December 2009 13:13 Build-a-Bear issued an apology about the global warming propaganda placed in their stores during the holiday season. It's a rather weak apology in my opinion. The CEO Maxine Clark wrote: "Our intention with the polar bear story was to inspire children, through the voices of our animal characters, to make a difference in their own individual ways...We did not intend to politicize the topic of global climate change or offend anyone in any way." I find this highly doubtful since the third segment of the movie opens up with "satellite photos" of the arctic circle melting. Or is Build-a-Bear just blind to how killing Christmas with global warming might impact children? Darren Pope, wrote the original article in the Examiner isn't doesn't buy the company's response either. "Even though Maxine Clark continues to stick to her guns by claiming the intent was not to 'politicize' the issue, I find that hard to swallow," said Pope, who is based in Charleston, S.C. "Another thing Clark said was that the video was intended to 'inspire' children. Inspire them to what? Obviously to take up the cause of fighting global warming. If that's not politicizing the issue, then I don't know what is." "

http://noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/305

Ah, and going back to Al Gore (or his BS movie) not mattering...

Quote :

"High school student stands up to climate change propaganda Written by Kristin McMurray Saturday, 26 December 2009 17:05 After a high school student was forced to watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in English class, she'd had enough. Rhinebeck High School sophomore, Michelle Dewkett spoke up to her school board about the biased teaching of certain topics, such as climate change. "[The movie] says (global warming) will kill us all without offering any alternative views…," she said. “This goes against board policy which states ‘Teachers shall approach controversial topics in an impartial and unprejudiced manner.’” During the school board meeting Dewkett brought to the board's attention that the movie should not have been shown during English class by citing their own bylaws to them, saying “[The] material will not be introduced for it's own sake and must be part of normal instruction.”"

And so it continues...

12/29/2009 8:38:03 AM

Who the fuck is this? Pagin me at 5:46
in the mornin, crack of dawn an' {*dialing phone*}
now I'm yawnin - wipe the cold out my eye {*ring*}
See who's this pagin me - and why
It's my nigga Pop from the barbershop
Told me he was in the gamblin spot, and heard the intricate plot
of niggaz wanna stick me like flypaper neighbor
Slow down love, please chill, drop the caper
Remember them niggaz from the hill up in Brownsville?
That you rolled dice wit, smoked the blunts and got nice wit
Yeah my nigga Fame up in Prospect
Nah they're my niggaz nah love wouldn't disrespect
I didn't say them, they schooled me to some niggaz
that you knew from back when, when you was clockin minor figures
Now they heard you blowin up like nitro
And they wanna stick the knife through your windpipe slow
So - thank Fame for warnin me cause now I'm warnin you
I got the mac nigga tell me what you gonna do

12/29/2009 9:20:31 AM

I am unironicly hoping global warming raises temps 5-10 degrees so Maine becomes livable.

12/29/2009 10:06:40 AM

Quote :

"EDITORIAL: Biased reporting on Climategate By THE WASHINGTON TIMES With trillions of dollars at stake in the battle over global warming, now would be the time for the press to closely scrutinize the claims of those who would reorganize the world's economy from farm to factory and laboratory to living room. And the Climategate scandal - where leaked e-mails and dodgy computer programs from the University of East Anglia raise powerful new questions about the role of politics in climate science - would be the perfect opportunity to explore what is going on behind the scenes. That's not happening. To judge by recent coverage from Associated Press, the Fourth Estate watchdog has acted like a third-rate pocket pet. Case in point is an 1,800-word AP missive that appeared in hundreds of publications, many carrying it on the front page of their Sunday, Dec. 13 issue with the headline, "Science not faked, but not pretty." AP gave three scientists copies of the controversial e-mails and then asked them about their conclusions. The wire service portrayed the trio of scientists as dismissing or minimizing allegations of scientific fraud when, in fact, the scientists believe no such thing. "

Read the full article here (too long to copy): http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-climategate/

12/29/2009 10:44:54 AM

Quote :

"Gore is a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC--the main organization pushing the "science" of climate change. And Gore--who is not a scientist--uses his many accolades to bolster his political positions concerning climate change. I mean, when Gore appears before Congress concerning the environment, he's not just some guy--he's a Nobel laureate."

Gore could have died in the womb and the UN could have been blown up in 1949 and guess what? That wouldn't affect this issue one bit. The IPCC wasn't the first group to put this out there and if you think so, you must have totally missed this issue being discussed over the past 2 decades. It's not always been them. You're focusing on easy political targets without going after the actual data itself.

The Nobel is as much about politics as anything. I could give two shits and so can the scientists. In the end, I hope that it's the science, not the appeals of politicians, that we listen to. It's putting Al Gore out there as a spokesman that makes Jim Inhofe a legit spokesman: if you soil the issue by putting politicians at the forefront, you deserve an equally stupid backlash.

Al Gore is a greedy politician/asshole and I wish was no more relevant than Jim Inhofe.

From here on out, I want to hear your analysis of what matters: the data.

^ Fun times from the Moonie Times! EXCELLENTE!

Meanwhile, back on the satellite:

Quote :

"Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica. Conducted by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), it says that warming seas are accelerating melting in the west of the continent. Ozone loss has cooled the region, it says, shielding it from global warming. Rising temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula are making life suitable for invasive species on land and sea. The report - Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment - was written using contributions from 100 leading scientists in various disciplines, and reviewed by a further 200. SCAR's executive director Dr Colin Summerhayes said it painted a picture of "the creeping global catastrophe that we face". "The temperature of the air is increasing, the temperature of the ocean is increasing, sea levels are rising - and the Sun appears to have very little influence on what we see," he said. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm

This is a good comparison of how sea level change has or will affect cities in the 1st and 3rd world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2009 1:42:51 PM

IMHOFE. It's IMHOFE. Sheesh.

Quote :

"50 years of cooling predicted Who said the science was settled? Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper. In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports. ”My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming....” In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations. Australian angle: Lu received his PhD in Physics from the University of Newcastle. "

More info here: http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

[Edited on December 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM. Reason : k]

12/29/2009 2:21:10 PM

Quote :

"In the end, I hope that it's the science, not the appeals of politicians, that we listen to."

I can agree with that 100%.

12/29/2009 6:44:47 PM

^ The opening video--a blatant appeal to emotion--at COP15 is strong evidence that this is unlikely to happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4

And the "science" means nothing without political action.

12/29/2009 8:45:09 PM

Eh, resource shortages again. The TV said it, it must be the 60s again.

12/29/2009 10:17:25 PM

^^^^ why do you trust his research and models over anyone elses?

12/29/2009 11:40:31 PM

Quote :

"IMHOFE. It's IMHOFE. Sheesh."

Heh? The clown's name is James Mountain Inhofe. Unless you are making some joke or reference that I am missing. But then he, himself, is a big enough joke not to miss.

12/30/2009 12:21:58 AM

fuck my life, how'd I confuse that one

I think...for that I should self impose a TSB posting ban till 2010

12/30/2009 9:26:08 AM

That would be rather unfortunate if you were to do so. While I may not agree with you on certain issues you are still leaps and bounds more respectable than this latest crop that seems to have infected TSB.

12/30/2009 9:32:25 AM

Quote :

"nd the "science" means nothing without political action."

Well, hopefully you'll be on the losing end of that.

Till then, keep thinking that "Al Gore has a big house" is a legitimate statement to make in this debate.

12/30/2009 11:43:10 PM

^^thank you sir.

Quote :

"Solar Shutdown: Feinstein to Block Energy Projects We need to transform to a new, clean energy economy but we can’t build solar panels in the Mojave Desert if California Senator Diane Feinstein has anything to say about it: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region. But before the bill to create two new Mojave national monuments has even had its first hearing, the California Democrat has largely achieved her aim. Regardless of the legislation’s fate, her opposition means that few if any power plants are likely to be built in the monument area, a complication in California’s effort to achieve its aggressive goals for renewable energy. Developers of the projects have already postponed several proposals or abandoned them entirely. The California agency charged with planning a renewable energy transmission grid has rerouted proposed power lines to avoid the monument.” Years of subsidies and tax credits haven’t helped wind and solar projects compete with more reliable sources of energy. Solar power supplies less than one percent of the country’s electricity demand; wind does slightly better. That’s not necessarily a red flag to stop building more, but it is indicative of how far we have to go and how costly it would be “transform to a clean energy economy” as President Obama said in his remarks to the delegation at the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen. If the private businesses deem it in their interest to pursue renewable energy projects (without federal help), they should be able to do so. But where these projects may be the most economically viable, such as the Mojave Desert, the government is shutting them down"

You really have to wonder. I mean, Feinstein clearly supports the Cap and Trade Carbon scheme but where does she think the needed clean energy will come from? Sweet mother of God.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/22/solar-shutdown-feinstein-to-block-energy-projects/

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : read the whole post at the link, I did not transfer all the text.]

12/31/2009 11:39:33 AM

Fantastic

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/12/walmart_others_make_money_on_o.html

1/3/2010 11:09:40 PM

lol, just more proof that this isn't about saving the planet.

1/4/2010 1:51:58 PM

(I had to post this somewhere...I guess this thread is as good as any)

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:41 PM. Reason : also, fucking anti-intellectual Republicans and *their* poor grammar.]

1/7/2010 11:40:25 PM

^ lol

1/7/2010 11:43:09 PM

its tough to find pro-AGW posts in January when its cold as shit...I'd think they'd at least say "this is just a blip on the radar" but who knows...maybe they're actually questioning the infallible scientists' hypotheses?

ps: I'm not just talking about a few cold days in the Winter...how about Korea with their most snow in 70 years...or maybe the most snow in Iowa in 40 years...perhaps Beijing's coldest temperatures in 40 years

Maybe one day the blind proponents will think for themselves...maybe

1/8/2010 12:08:10 AM

didn't you hear? low temperatures and snow are proof of global warming!

1/8/2010 12:15:42 AM

Anybody learn how to analyze a dataset yet

1/8/2010 12:16:20 AM

definitely not the people on the pro-AGW side, given how few statisticians are in their employ. You know how many statisticians worked on Mann's hockey stick? a grand total of zero

1/8/2010 12:17:40 AM

There hasn't been a lot of science produced lately because of the holidays. But there's this:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/01/07/tech-climate-winter-weather.html?ref=rss

1/8/2010 12:17:50 AM

^^^the pro-AGW scientists still think 100 years of unreliable data is good evidence of a 5,000,000,000 year old planet...you tell me if anybody has properly analyzed a dataset

1/8/2010 12:26:05 AM

Just curious if anybody checked out any statistics literature since I last checked

1/8/2010 12:27:04 AM

dunno when you last checked, but probably not me...i've been too busy keeping warm

1/8/2010 12:28:24 AM

who needs statisticians when you can just drop 806 weather stations that don't agree with your MO?

Quote :

"806 weather stations were dropped from the total of 6000 worldwide temperature stations in a single year with no explanation from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) data. GHCN is a database of temperature, precipitation and pressure records managed by the National Climatic Data Center, Arizona State University and the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center"

http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year

At least Obama is backing off his retarded pledge of aid to developing countries:

Quote :

"Obama backs off Copenhagen aid promise By Steve Milloy Friday, January 8, 2010 So much for the Copenhagen Accord. The Obama administration apparently is backing off its promise made in Copenhagen to provide up to $100 billion in aid to developing countries. According to a repot in today’s Climatewire: America’s contribution to $100 billion in annual global climate change funding by 2020 may not be over and above existing foreign aid, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated yesterday. The promised money — which Clinton announced at the U.N. climate summit in Denmark last month and pledged the United States would take a lead role in mobilizing — was a key element in the final global warming accord that world leaders approved. Yet while the Copenhagen Accord, as it is known, calls for “scaled up, new and additional” money to help poor nations cope with climate change-provoked disasters, Clinton sidestepped the commitment when asked directly if the U.S. portion would be additional. “We don’t know yet, because we don’t know what the Congress is going to do,” Clinton told a crowd at the Center for Global Development. "

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18743?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

1/8/2010 12:04:34 PM