Quote :

"What is the "this is the response, this is what happens" "

seriously, are you kidding? he's talking about the ~200,000 or so people predicted to be dead in Haiti as a result of a 6.5 earthquake.

There was a 7.0 earthquake in CA the week before that killed 63 ppl, IIRC.

1/18/2010 7:04:19 PM

Is he talking about the 200,000 predicted dead happening as a result?

or

Is he talking about how the response was a new kind of internationalism where countries help each other out, and the perils Haiti faces from this natural disaster are perils any poor country would face, and this new spirit of helping each other out is a good thing that we should nurture?

or

Is he talking about the fairly weak resolutions that came out of copenhagen, including no plan to help poor countries to deal with the devastation that could be wrought from disasters related to climate change?

You've given all three of those as answers to the same question, maybe you can see how I'm a little confused when I ask a straightforward question and get 3 different answers (so far)

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 7:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2010 7:08:07 PM

^ now you're just being obtuse

the "internationalism" thing (Glover's word) is in the video BEFORE the quoted section that you initially posted. None of the sites re-posting the Huffington Post article were talking about the internationalism thing Glover said in the sentences before the ones they are misconstruing (because it doesn't fit into their narrative).

The fact that things are so horrible in Haiti (the 200,000 people died) reflect the poor ability of poor nations to respond to crises. Climate change is predicted to lead to crises (like hurricanes, droughts, storms, floods, etc.), and one of the points of contention at Copehagen was how much help poor countries needed or deserved. By most accounts, Copenhagen failed to set in place clear guidelines for dealing with or controlling climate change, and the death toll in Haiti has made it clear that poor countries in particular would benefit from better preparations from disasters.

I'm starting to think you didn't actually listen to the video in the link you yourself provided.

1/18/2010 7:18:48 PM

No, I think you just didn't actually read my question each time earlier since you kept giving different answers while I kept asking the exact same question

1/18/2010 7:47:32 PM

In other words, you realized i was right that Danny Glover never said that global warming causes earthquakes.

1/18/2010 8:02:07 PM

Actually yes, I don't think he was saying that global warming causes earthquakes. However I still don't know exactly what he meant. I think he had a lot of thoughts in his head and just kind of let them out in some slightly random order.

1/18/2010 8:04:03 PM

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
January 17, 2010

Quote :

"A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it. Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was 'speculation' and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: 'If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.' [quote]Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as 'voodoo science'."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

U.N. panel re-examines Himalayan glacier thaw report
Mon Jan 18, 2010

Quote :

"'We are looking into the issue of the Himalayan glaciers, and will take a position on it in the next two or three days,' Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told Reuters in an e-mail."

Quote :

"Flaws in IPCC reports can be damaging since the findings are a guide for government policy. [!] The IPCC's core finding in 2007 was that it was more than 90 percent sure that mankind is the main cause of global warming, mainly by using fossil fuels."

Quote :

"Ramesh had said in November that a paper commissioned by the Indian government had found no conclusive evidence to link the retreat of Himalayan glaciers to climate change. He said many of India's 9,500 Himalayan glaciers are shrinking, but some are shrinking at a slower rate or even increasing."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60H3VE20100118

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 5:16 AM. Reason : And the fraud unravels more and more. ]

1/19/2010 5:15:14 AM

Yep, every error or data revision is evidence of fraud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2010 4:02:40 PM

it is damning, considering that we have known for a LONG time that the glaciers have been ablating, not melting. Higher temperatures have little to do with ablation. If the IPCC had even bothered to consult someone who knew anything about the glaciers, they would have found out pretty fucking quickly that the Indian guy was full of shit. Considering that the report is supposed to be based on "science," it's pretty bad that this horseshit made it in to the report. Especially when there is so much bitching and moaning about how the "deniers" are "denying science." You know, science like forged hockey sticks, fraudulent data analysis, and the like.

as well, given that many in the anti-AGW camp have been saying all along that this is little more than fear-mongering. And, well, the Himalayan melt has been revealed to be little more than fear-mongering.

1/19/2010 6:36:55 PM

More good news:

Quote :

"EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding challenged today in the U.S. Senate WASHINGTON — Sen. Lisa Murkowski took her battle with the Environmental Protection Agency to the floor of the Senate today, saying she was left with no choice but to fight a federal agency she believes is “contemplating regulations that will destroy jobs while millions of Americans are doing everything they can just to find one.” The Alaska Republican announced she would seek to keep the EPA from drawing up rules on greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters, such as power plants, refineries and manufacturers. Murkowski did it by filing a “disapproval resolution,” a rarely used procedural move that prohibits rules written by executive branch agencies from taking effect. “If Congress allows this to happen there will be severe consequences to our economy,” Murkowski said. “Businesses will be forced to cut jobs, if not move outside our borders or close their doors for good perhaps. Domestic energy production will be severely restricted, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our national security. Housing will become less affordable.” She was immediately countered by Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairwoman of the committee that has done the most work on climate-change legislation: the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Murkowski’s disapproval resolution would essentially throw out the process by which the EPA found that greenhouse gases endanger public health, Boxer said. She called Murkowski’s resolution an “unprecedented move to overturn a health finding by health experts and scientific experts in order to stand with the special interests.” Murkowski has as co-sponsors 38 fellow senators, including three Democrats: Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Her move has prompted an aggressive response by environmentalists, who launched a radio and television advertising campaign in Anchorage and Washington, D.C., that focused on the role two industry lobbyists had in writing Murkowski’s original proposal last fall. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also criticized Murkowski’s effort, saying recently during an event in New York sponsored by the Geothermal Energy Association that Murkowski’s proposal was “misguided."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/21/epas-co2-endangerment-finding-challenged-today-in-the-u-s-senate/

AND

Quote :

"The EPA and the Data Quality Act Last week Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), Sen. David Vitter (La.), Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson expressing concern that the EPA’s recent “endangerment finding” regarding CO2 violates the Data Quality Act. I’m guessing you never heard of the Data Quality Act (DQA). I hadn’t, either, until today. The DQA is not an Act per se; it is a statute that was attached to an appropriations bill in 2000 (Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 — Public Law 106–554; H.R. 5658). Section 515 directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to: … issue government-wide guidelines that “provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies.” The OMB did so by defining what the quality (including the objectivity, utility, and integrity) of information means, in the legal sense. The OMB guidelines also established: … administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, correction of information disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the OMB or agency guidelines. … The four Congresspersons cite the Climategate emails and IPCC 4th Assessment as information the EPA relied upon that does not meet the tests of the DQA. They requested that EPA Admin Lisa Jackson conduct a review of the information the EPA used in their endangerment finding, and that she report to Congress as the whether the DQA was violated. …"

http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/01/21/the-epa-and-the-data-quality-act/

1/22/2010 11:42:51 AM

2009: Second warmest year on record, end of warmest decade-

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html

GISS Climatologist Gavin Schmidt discusses the surface temeprature record:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/gavin-schmidt.html

Both provide some insight into GISS data anaysis methodology and the interview addresses concerns of manipulating data.

1/22/2010 2:33:47 PM

yep. second warmest year on record, especially since we started dropping all the cold stations for political convenience. Isn't it amazing, though. We have a lot of sensors in areas that are prone to warming solely due to asphalt. And then we are surprised that the thermometers are reading higher. CRAZY!!!!

oh look, Gavin Schmidt. A guy running a blog on the gov'ts dime. You know, something that's illegal.

I wonder how long it will take until the glaring mistakes are found in these temperature sets. Does seem to happen quite often.

I am wondering how it can be "the second warmest year on record" when we have confirmed cooling. Quite amazing. That takes some serious data manipulation to accomplish

1/22/2010 6:28:28 PM

Quote :

"oh look, Gavin Schmidt. A guy running a blog on the gov'ts dime. You know, something that's illegal."

What?

Oh, and AD HOMINEM!!!1

1/22/2010 7:18:48 PM

I'll happily admit it's ad hominem. I have no problem with calling that guy a slimeball. I knew it when I said it. Just wanted to play your game for a little bit and see if you would fall for it. you did

1/23/2010 6:10:56 PM

Can you provide something that shows that the blog he runs is somehow illegal?

This is the disclaimer on the blog:

Quote :

"Disclaimer The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions. RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked."

And if it's illegal, why is it still operating?

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 7:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2010 7:35:15 PM

his blog isn't illegal. operating it on the gov't dime is. You know, like I said. reading is fundamental, dude.

1/23/2010 9:50:25 PM

Provide some kind of evidence to support yourself, you pathetic fuck.

1/23/2010 11:34:34 PM

ummm... his blog post times are DURING THE FUCKING WORK DAY. what more evidence do you need, dumbass

hell, the fucking climategate emails even talk about it. jesus, you are dense

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 11:37 PM. Reason : ]

1/23/2010 11:35:43 PM

Oh my god, he blogs during the workday! Why is that illegal? NASA obviously knows about his blog, and seems to be okay with what he does. I'm sure he has spare time during the day to do it.

Actually, I'm not even going to assume that he posts during the day. You need to provide evidence of that. The blog entries don't have time stamps that I can see. And going by when the first comments come in, he either posts them late at night or very early in the morning, or otherwise not during typical work hours. This goes back to november '09.

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2010 12:06:04 AM

Quote :

"seriously, are you kidding? he's talking about the ~200,000 or so people predicted to be dead in Haiti as a result of a 6.5 earthquake. There was a 7.0 earthquake in CA the week before that killed 63 ppl, IIRC."

you don't RC.

haiti quake was 7.0 which is where big time devastation starts. cali quake was only 6.5 which isn't really serious. 7.0 is like 5 times more powerful than 6.5.

1/24/2010 12:36:16 AM

Quote :

"Oh my god, he blogs during the workday! Why is that illegal?"

maybe because it is PERSONAL stuff being done on TAXPAYER TIME. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. seriously, just shut the fuck up

Quote :

"Actually, I'm not even going to assume that he posts during the day. You need to provide evidence of that."

If you can't be bothered to do what thousands of others have already, then it's clear you are trolling. just shut the fuck up.

but hey, let's play your game.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-carbon-dioxide-theory-of-gilbert-plass/
first comment is at 0905. tells you around when it was posted, durrrr.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/350/
first comment is at 1314. tells you around when it was posted, durrrr.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/
first comment is at 1048. tells you around when it was posted, durrrr.
But no, the number of complaints that have been lodged about this surely suggests that there is no merit to it Shut the fuck up, troll.

Quote :

"7.0 is like 5 times more powerful than 6.5."

clearly you don't know what a logarithmic scale is, do you.

1/24/2010 1:03:03 AM

thats exactly what i was explaining to other guy. clearly

1/24/2010 1:22:53 AM

only, it's NOT 5 times as powerful, dumbass. at best, it's 3.

1/24/2010 1:24:39 AM

like

1/24/2010 1:26:58 AM

like, troll

1/24/2010 1:27:13 AM

At least she understands the principle, which is more than most people.

1/24/2010 1:30:30 AM

More troll on troll action. I'll cheer for the one that can wipe its ass.

1/24/2010 1:40:23 AM

oh, I can wipe my ass. 30 fuckin times, thank you. you act like you've never had a particularly nasty poop

1/24/2010 2:00:28 AM

Jesus, stop ghost editing your posts.

Even if he did post during the day in the past, NASA seems to have no issue with it. They endorse the blog. So, if what he is doing is breaking some law, then your issue should be with NASA, not Schmidt.

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 2:06 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2010 2:02:59 AM

Quote :

"Even if he did post during the day in the past, NASA seems to have no issue with it. They endorse the blog. So, if what he is doing is breaking some law"

it's not just "some law." it's THE FUCKING LAW. The one that EVERY FUCKING GOV'T EMPLOYEE HAS TO FOLLOW. The kind of law that will actually get your ass sent to federal prison for quite some time. I'm sorry that it doesn't bother you that a guy uses your fucking tax dollars to do his own personal shit. That you can dismiss criminal activity is quite telling, frankly.

Yes, NASA has no problem with someone flagrantly breaking the law. Just like they have no problem with someone flagrantly falsifying data and creating datasets that disagree with other accurate datasets. Yes, that makes it 100% A-OK.

1/24/2010 2:25:48 AM

Quote :

"Yes, NASA has no problem with someone flagrantly breaking the law."

Oh, so NASA is in on it. I see.

Why do I get lured into trying to have a exchange with this redneck halfwit?

1/24/2010 2:45:39 AM

Quote :

"The kind of law that will actually get your ass sent to federal prison for quite some time."

not really. find me that law. or anyone who has been sent to prison for using a gov't computer for personal business. it happens ALL THE TIME. i should know i work in a federal gov't office. you might lose your job if you do it too much. but they're not going to arrest you unless you're actually doing something illegal otherwise.

1/24/2010 2:48:34 AM

Quote :

"Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified By David Rose The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’"

Glad to see we can trust them.

whole article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUx6pwXe

1/25/2010 10:53:30 AM

^ Good post--but what about the blatant contradiction by a lead author?

Quote :

"In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr [Murari] Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. 'It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.'"

That is in direct contradiction to the IPCC's stated mandate:

Quote :

"IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy. . . ."

http://www1.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

1/26/2010 6:01:37 AM

Quote :

"That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming. It turns out that the hole led to the formation of moist, brighter-than-usual clouds that shielded the Antarctic region from the warming induced by greenhouse gas emissions over the last two decades, scientists write in Wednesday’s issue of Geophysical Research Letters. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesscience

So, in other words, they have no clue . . . which is a perfectly acceptable result in science and generally an honest one, but not one ideologues on either side want in a political fight.

1/26/2010 1:23:15 PM

Somewhat on topic:

Quote :

"Corporate Backing for Research? Get Over It By JOHN TIERNEY I find myself in the unfamiliar position of defending Al Gore and his fellow Nobel laureate, Rajendra K. Pachauri. When they won the prize in 2007, they were hailed for their selfless efforts to protect the planet from the ravages of greedy fossil fuel industries. Since then, though, their selflessness has been questioned. Journalists started by looking at the money going to companies and nonprofit groups associated with Mr. Gore, and now they have turned their attention to Dr. Pauchauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The I.P.C.C., which is supposed to be the gold standard of peer-reviewed climate science, in 2007 warned of a “very high” likelihood that global warming would cause the Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035. When the Indian government subsequently published a paper concluding there was no solid evidence of Himalayan glaciers shrinking because of global warming, Dr. Pachauri initially dismissed it as “voodoo science” beneath the I.P.C.C.’s standards. But then it came out that the I.P.C.C.’s projection was based not on the latest peer-reviewed evidence, but on speculative comments made a decade ago in a magazine interview by Syed Hasnain, a glaciologist who now works in an Indian research group led by Dr. Pachauri. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26tier.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesscience

1/26/2010 2:12:43 PM

Wow, some pretty damning information about the IPCC's 2001 report. FROM A GUY WHO WAS A LEAD AUTHOR ON IT.

Quote :

"Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes. “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007."

Damn. Wonder why we never heard too much about that. I guess the science was so settled, that there was no need to report on fraud and deception.

Oh look, MORE non-peer-reviewed claims in the 2007 IPCC report. What was that about the importance of peer-review again? BTW, yes, it's a "blog," but does it have its facts straight, that is what matters...

Quote :

"This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that: At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees: This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature. The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed. According to IPCC rules, it should not have been used as a primary source. "

Hey, check out this nice long list of non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces that made it into the report, too!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/

Even better how about this bit of professionalism... A paper was written about the Surface Stations project that apparently found that the project had little to no bearing on the accuracy of the US temperature record [Menne et al 2010]. They even claimed to have "worked with" Neil Watts. Only one problem: they didn't. They used a subset of the project's data, one that hadn't undergone any quality control. The best part? Watts told them not to use that data and offered to give them the proper data when he was finished with his study. Instead, Menne went ahead and published his paper before Watts published his, something that is a distinctly unprofessional thing to do in the scientific community. How is that for scientific integrity? Looks like the only real concern was in beating Watts to the punch and discrediting him with a phony analysis before Watts could present his research. Really classy, guys...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/

1/28/2010 7:39:25 PM

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONFIRMED:

http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/world/story/6911739/

1/29/2010 10:22:25 AM

damnit, you beat me to it >.<

too bad we couldn't warm his heart

1/29/2010 7:30:58 PM

Ahh, media bias at its best!

Quote :

"£8BN BBC ECO-BIAS BBC's billions that fund a green agenda STRIKING parallels between the BBC’s coverage of the global warming debate and the activities of its pension fund can be revealed today. The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit. Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted. "

read full article here: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156703/-8bn-BBC-eco-bias-

[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 12:05 PM. Reason : /]

2/9/2010 12:05:15 PM

http://tinyurl.com/yafay6u

Quote :

"The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri."

ibtINDIA IS DUMB

2/9/2010 3:58:21 PM

The Obama administration is doing the same:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/us-climate-monitoring-service

2/9/2010 4:41:42 PM

Looks like more and more people and groups are becoming skeptical of IPCC's data and conclusions

It wasn't that long ago where anyone who was skeptical of the IPCC's "consensus" was labelled a crazy person who got a paycheck from Exxon

2/9/2010 4:45:27 PM

The EPA's "ruling" to regulate CO2 was based on mostly IPCC information, I wonder how this will play into that decision.

2/9/2010 4:56:16 PM

^^ and yet, none of the things people have decried as issues in this thread have been what the actual scientific community has found as issues recently. The emails weren't found to have any actual wrongdoing, just some poor word choices. The temperature adjustments made to the data are still known to be valid, the idea that humans cause climate change is still well supported, the idea of CO2 as a major greenhouse gas is still also very well supported.

I think it's good India is setting up their own group. More data is always going to be useful. But they are going to require just as much, if not more, skepticism than the IPCC due to the obvious political reasons for them having their own body.

2/9/2010 5:04:23 PM

Quote :

"The emails weren't found to have any actual wrongdoing, just some poor word choices."

The United States and India, among others, disagree with you

I don't think they formed their own climate study organizations because of "poor word choices"

It probably had something to do with the IPCC emails revealing that some of the scientists advocated data manipulation, wished to silence anyone that didn't completely agree with all of their conclusions, even when the conclusions were based on knowingly manipulated data, etc.

Quote :

"the temperature adjustments made to the data are still known to be valid"

I need an explanation for this statement

2/9/2010 6:22:52 PM

Quote :

"The emails weren't found to have any actual wrongdoing, just some poor word choices."

Bullshit. Some of the people in the emails would have been charged with crimes in England, had the statute of limitations not already expired.

Quote :

"The temperature adjustments made to the data are still known to be valid"

Bullshit. more and more information is coming to light every day showing how that is NOT the case. Darwin Airport, Australia, anyone? Canadian temperature adjustments, anyone? Come on.

2/9/2010 6:28:52 PM

I've always said that global warmism was nothing more than a religion for pseudo-intellectuals. Now they're sounding more and more like my preacher did when I asked him questions about christianity.

some things never change.

2/9/2010 6:30:58 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. Some of the people in the emails would have been charged with crimes in England, had the statute of limitations not already expired."

Quote :

" The United States and India, among others, disagree with you I don't think they formed their own climate study organizations because of "poor word choices" It probably had something to do with the IPCC emails revealing that some of the scientists advocated data manipulation, wished to silence anyone that didn't completely agree with all of their conclusions, even when the conclusions were based on knowingly manipulated data, etc."

http://www.examiner.com/x-6503-Ft-Lauderdale-Science-News-Examiner~y2010m2d4-Dr-Michael-Mann-cleared-of-tweaking-climate-change-data-second-inquiry-on-the-way

haha, reality (once again) disagrees with you two.

Quote :

"Bullshit. more and more information is coming to light every day showing how that is NOT the case. Darwin Airport, Australia, anyone? Canadian temperature adjustments, anyone? Come on."

"more and more" "everyday"? Really?

So in your view, it's wrong to correct data that was interpreted to be Celsius*10 when it was instead kelvins? Or to correct for a station that is biased by an unusual warm or cold localized temperature effect?

2/9/2010 7:14:48 PM

Quote :

"haha, reality (once again) disagrees with you two."

Let the record show that moron trusts Penn State University's initial "investigation" more than the Obama Administration...even before the new inquiry even takes place!

Quote :

"A new inquiry will be undertaken by the school to ease public confidence in Dr. Mann's findings, which indicates that the University is anticipating another cleared ruling. But, many believe he should be thoroughly scrutinized due to the evidence at hand."

What authority or ability Penn State University has to be the be-all end-all source in scrutinizing Mann's questionable actions is anyone's guess

Note that the article also asserts that the hockey stick graph has been proven to be a fraud...despite people like moron telling you "the temperature adjustments made to the data are still known to be valid"


[Edited on February 9, 2010 at 7:23 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2010 7:21:05 PM