Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to the AGW alarmists, the laws of physics are wrong, the evidence must be fudged, 10,000s of scientists and every science organisation and university worldwide are all liars because they don't agree with the AGW haox.
What if the person/group making the accusations of lies (eg scientists supposedly "falsifying data"), are actually the ones who are lying?
I learned long ago to fact-check and look at the evidence.
So why are you so upset over a team of experts looking into the data? If the data are accurate, then you AGW cultists have nothing to worry about. In fact, if the data are accurate you should ENCOURAGE people to look into the data and how they were manipulated. If the AGW alarmists have nothing to hide, why are you worried about others looking at the data?
So, this team is also ignorant? Or are they only ignorant turkeys if they disagree with you?
The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.
Your OP was a tabloid journalist's (Christopher Booker) and his hysterically inaccurate article in a trash tabloid. That's who I was referring to as a 'turkey'
Your Gish Gallop of names with no provision of a source is something else. Got any links?
It is the brainchild of a right wing politician and a guy with no science background whatsoever, unless you count sports science.
Not that you'd care.
Uh, I'm on your side on this issue. Probably should have used the 'rolled eyes' icon.
Used embarrassment icon because I'm embarrassed for the deniers who think they know more than people who actually study this stuff, and who actually accuse these scientists of perpetrating a hoax and a consipiracy.
So, this team is also ignorant? Or are they only ignorant turkeys if they disagree with you?
The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.
So the fact that they're working with a political organization based on a claim by a lying journalist doesn't set off any alarm bells?
So why are you so upset over a team of experts looking into the data? If the data are accurate, then you AGW cultists have nothing to worry about. In fact, if the data are accurate you should ENCOURAGE people to look into the data and how they were manipulated. If the AGW alarmists have nothing to hide, why are you worried about others looking at the data?
Did you even look at the Cowtan videos I provided earlier in the thread? Apparently not, as they encourage people to look at the data themselves and shows how. Something you are now falsely accusing me of not doing.
BTW, Have you ever heard of the non-government independently funded (by the Koch Brothers no less, as well as Microsoft and a few others) Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project headed by former 'skeptic' physicist Prof Richard Muller? They've already done an independent review of surface temperature data. And guess what?
I absolutely want experts to review the data. And they have, over and over again- and will continue to do so as new data is found and more refined methods are developed adding to the existing body of science and data. I also absolutely encourage lay people to look at the 'data' themselves - as well as learn enough about the science to understand at least the basics of what they are looking at (and have provided many links in my posts on this topic).
Bearing in mind non-experts need to be aware that they don't have the knowledge and expertise of people who study and do research in the various fields of science for years, and are likely to come across many things they don't understand. When I come across something I don't understand, I'll ask question and research more. I don't automatically assume the experts are all wrong or lying and that I know better than they do or swallow whatever any non-scientist in the tabloid press writes - like fake 'skeptics' do.
Sorry bud, I'll look at scientific evidence, but Christopher Booker's opinion is no better than yours... I'll pass on this one.
I love how global warming deniers rely solely on the opinions of idiots over factual information. Because we all know blogs and opinions are more factual than research and facts.
So why are you so upset over a team of experts looking into the data? If the data are accurate, then you AGW cultists have nothing to worry about. In fact, if the data are accurate you should ENCOURAGE people to look into the data and how they were manipulated. If the AGW alarmists have nothing to hide, why are you worried about others looking at the data?
Okay I read your link.... it's the GWPF - a political advocacy group originally founded by outspoken layperson and climate science 'skeptic' Nigel Lawson who worked for fossil fuel companies. GWPF hide who their funders are. Why aren't they being transparent about this?
This 'temperature data review project' seems to be headed by a retired clinical biochemist who hasn't any qualifications or expertise in any of the geosciences and hasn't published any research in climate science? Hmmm. This is what you call an expert?
There isn't really anything to look at yet on their project website. However, I'll give them benefit of the doubt - if they do an honest critical analysis and submit it for peer review and publishing in a reputable academic Journal-well and good. Honest scepticism is always encouraged in science.
Unfortunately, their proven history of misrepresentation and lies for political/commercial purposes doesn't inspire me with confidence. And on their home page they state a deliberate and unsubstantiated lie about the NOAA data- which doesn't bode well as a beginning.
Do you clean your home, do repairs as needed. Of course you do. The earth is our home and we can't take it for granted. We can't be so selfish and cavalier, we need to take care of it for future generations.
Meanwhile ISIS is killing thousands and we act like it's no big deal???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
because I'm embarrassed for the deniers who think they know more than people who actually study this stuff, and who actually accuse these scientists of perpetrating a hoax and a consipiracy.
