Climategate Lies - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-13-2010, 12:50 PM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:55 AM
i don't even know what you're talking about anymore.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 12:52 PM   #227
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Roy Spencer makes more sense than Michael Mann despite being an intelligent design proponent. That's what I'm getting at.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 01:37 PM   #228
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

The problem is that people like you say that but then support policies that confirm conservatives worst nightmares.
Incorrect dictionaries, simpleton/junk science, and conspiracy theories... I can imagine you all have some funny nightmares.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

Well when looking at the political chart thread it would be mostly socialist in this forum.
There's that broken dictionary again...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 02:33 PM   #229
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
At least when I say someone is tainted it's because the data shows that.
What? The data behind intelligent design is clearly tainted by religious belief.

AW's post pretty much nails your use of science, at least in this thread.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 07:30 AM   #230
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:55 AM
Quote:
'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Prince Charles urges environmentalists
Nothing to see here. Just the one-day-to-be head of the Church of England (the official albeit shrinking official church of the state) ass kissing reaching out to the two vibrant religions in Europe, Islam and Climate Change.

Our chief of NASA is doing the same.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 07:47 AM   #231
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:55 AM
Don't you feel morally superior now?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 08:37 AM   #232
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Nothing to see here. Just the one-day-to-be head of the Church of England (the official albeit shrinking official church of the state) ass kissing reaching out to the two vibrant religions in Europe, Islam and Climate Change.

Our chief of NASA is doing the same.
FFS Do you think that somebody as antiscientific as Prince Charles has anything to do with a PR exercise by NASA?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 08:44 AM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
FFS Do you think that somebody as antiscientific as Prince Charles has anything to do with a PR exercise by NASA?
Sure when he meets scientists where do you think he got his ideas? He's even teaching his mother to talk about it. James Hansen was one of the biggest propagandists to everyone.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 08:57 AM   #234
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
What? The data behind intelligent design is clearly tainted by religious belief.

AW's post pretty much nails your use of science, at least in this thread.
First your link "No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator" isn't working and second you don't read my posts because I've already proved a medieval warming period. I don't believe in intelligent design and I already proved that Roy Spencer makes more sense on the AGW topic than Michael Mann by showing a historical link of natural warmer temperatures during the time of the Vikings. Most scientists who are skeptics aren't intelligent design types anyways. Do you really think these "investigations" have somehow ended the argument on AGW? If you do you're dreaming.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 09:02 AM   #235
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I can imagine you all have some funny nightmares.
And you greens do to:

YouTube - Planestupid.com "Polar Bears"
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 09:06 AM   #236
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
you greens
haha, argument fail.
__________________
coolian2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 09:09 AM   #237
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Sure when he meets scientists where do you think he got his ideas? He's even teaching his mother to talk about it. James Hansen was one of the biggest propagandists to everyone.
Prince Charles is a buffoon and dangling him around as an example of who rational people trust is a complete non-starter. You complain of persecution if I question the credibility of an intelligent design supporting scientist but jump to label legitimate experts such as Hansen as propagandists.

Can you not see the absurdity of your position?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 09:13 AM   #238
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:55 PM
Mann acknowledged warming in the North Atlantic
Quote:
lobal temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/share...lScience09.pdf

That's an article published in Science, and I want to see the evidence of impropriety that you so frequently allude to.

Like your claims about the 1930's being the hottest period on record are justified by focusing on the American data set and ignoring the rest of the world the warming in some regions is offset by cooler temperatures globally.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 09:16 AM   #239
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Sure when he meets scientists where do you think he got his ideas? He's even teaching his mother to talk about it. James Hansen was one of the biggest propagandists to everyone.
Will you consider your source, it's Prince Charles. Just step back a little and think about how disconnected with reality, science or anything else real he is. No one in here gives a shit about what he says, it doesn't matter if he stands on the right side or not. You may agree with Ann Coulter but are you really going to use her as a source? If no one is using him as a source you look like a fool still bringing his name up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I've already proved a medieval warming period. I don't believe in intelligent design and I already proved that Roy Spencer makes more sense on the AGW topic than Michael Mann by showing a historical link of natural warmer temperatures during the time of the Vikings.
Oh, you've "proved" this?

These statements alone make it clear you just don't understand anything about the scientific process.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 11:44 AM   #240
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Prince Charles is a buffoon and dangling him around as an example of who rational people trust is a complete non-starter. You complain of persecution if I question the credibility of an intelligent design supporting scientist but jump to label legitimate experts such as Hansen as propagandists.

Can you not see the absurdity of your position?
Hansen is a legitimate expert? He's the guy that predicted New York would be underwater by 2000. He thinks shutting down coal is a good solution. Obviously he's a propagandist. Roy Spencer is simply skeptical of IPCC claims like many who aren't intelligent design proponents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Oh, you've "proved" this?

These statements alone make it clear you just don't understand anything about the scientific process.
Do you believe that Vikings farmed in colder temperatures than now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Mann acknowledged warming in the North Atlantichttp://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/share...lScience09.pdf

That's an article published in Science, and I want to see the evidence of impropriety that you so frequently allude to.

Like your claims about the 1930's being the hottest period on record are justified by focusing on the American data set and ignoring the rest of the world the warming in some regions is offset by cooler temperatures globally.
I don't think the debate is over when it comes to a worldwide medieval warming period:

Medieval Warm Period



And here's a carbon tax believer on the Climategate "Investigation" Whitewash:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...reen-lie/59709

Quote:
Climategate and the Big Green Lie
Jul 14 2010, 12:13 AM ET |

By way of preamble, let me remind you where I stand on climate change. I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption. The scandal attracted enormous attention in the US, and support for a new energy policy has fallen. In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy.

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

You think I exaggerate?

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research...

Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...

Clearly, Dr. Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.

In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.

Further "vindication" of the Climategate emailers was to follow, of course, in Muir Russell's equally probing investigation. To be fair, Russell manages to issue a criticism or two. He says the scientists were sometimes "misleading" -- but without meaning to be (a plea which, in the case of the "trick to hide the decline", is an insult to one's intelligence). On the apparent conspiracy to subvert peer review, it found that the "allegations cannot be upheld" -- but, as the impressively even-handed Fred Pearce of the Guardian notes, this was partly on the grounds that "the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was 'team responsibility'." Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the university which houses CRU, calls this "exoneration".

I am glad to see The Economist, which I criticized for making light of the initial scandal, taking a balanced view of these unsatisfactory proceedings. My only quarrels with its report are quibbles. For instance, in the second paragraph it says:

The reports conclude that the science of climate is sound...

Actually, they don't, as the article's last paragraph makes clear:

An earlier report on climategate from the House of Commons assumed that a subsequent probe by a panel under Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and chairman of Shell, would deal with the science. The Oxburgh report, though, sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed, not that it was actually reliable. And nor did Sir Muir, with this third report, think judging the science was his job.

Like Pearce, The Economist rightly draws attention to the failure of the Russell inquiry to ask Phil Jones of the CRU whether he actually deleted any emails to defeat FoI requests. It calls this omission "rather remarkable". Pearce calls it "extraordinary". Myself, I would prefer to call it "astonishing and indefensible". I don't see how, having spotted this, the magazine can conclude that the report, overall, was "thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics." (Well, the critics make such unreasonable demands! Look into the charges, they say. Hear from the other side. Ask the obvious questions. It never stops: you just can't satisfy these people.)

However, The Economist is calling for the IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri to go. That's good.

So where does this leave us? Walter Russell Mead is always worth reading on this subject, and I usually agree with him -- but I think his summing up in this case is not quite right.

Greens who feared and climate skeptics who hoped that the rash of investigations following Climategate and Glaciergate and all the other problems would reveal some gaping obvious flaws in the science of climate change were watching the wrong thing. The Big Green Lie (or Delusion, to be charitable) isn't so much that climate change is happening and that it is very likely caused or at least exacerbated by human activity. The Big Lie is that the green movement is a source of coherent or responsible counsel about what to do.

He's right, of course, that the green movement is not trusted as an adviser on what to do. So what? Its counsel on policy is not required. Nor, for that matter, is a complex international treaty of the sort that Copenhagen failed to produce. Congress and the administration can get to the right policy -- an explicit or implicit carbon tax; subsidies for low-carbon energy -- without the greens' input, so long as public opinion is convinced that the problem is real and needs to be addressed. It's not the extreme or otherwise ill-advised policy recommendations of the greens that have turned opinion against action of any kind, though I grant you they're no help. It's the diminished credibility of the claim that we have a problem in the first place. That is why Climategate mattered. And that is why these absurd "vindications" of the climate scientists involved also matter.

The economic burdens of mitigating climate change will not be shouldered until a sufficient number of voters believe the problem is real, serious, and pressing. Restoring confidence in climate science has to come first. That, in turn, means trusting voters with all of the doubts and unanswered questions -- with inconvenient data as well as data that confirm the story -- instead of misleading them (unintentionally, of course) into believing that everything is cut and dried. The inquiries could have started that process. They have further delayed it.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com