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.
Virtually all serious scientist and their professional organizations have endorsed the IPCC findings, conclusion, and recommendation. The serious climatologists who dissent can be counted on one hand. 92% of the American public think we need to take steps to mitigate climate change. 59% think those steps need to be major steps quite soon.
You can't stop climate change. When are you going to understand that?
You can't stop climate change. When are you going to understand that?
We can stop or mitigate the anthropogenic component of it fairly easily. I hope we learn enough to begin to control the natural swings in climate. We'd really like to mitigate the severity of the next ice age. We have the ability to modify climate.
and less than 1% of the public have heard a blessed thing from those who are challenging the findings of the "community" which we know accounts for a very small set of scientists as well.
It's not a small set at all. Virtually all major scientific professional society have endorsed IPCC.
We can stop or mitigate the anthropogenic component of it fairly easily. I hope we learn enough to begin to control the natural swings in climate. We'd really like to mitigate the severity of the next ice age. We have the ability to modify climate.
WHAT? Who has the ability to modify climate? Man doesn't, man would only make things worse by trying something so stupid and naive.
This has been a growing problem with this community for a while now. I won't claim that it is the entire community, rather it is key individuals and administrative heads who are responsible for revisionist and propaganda based science.
It is good to see some of these problems concerning peer review, due diligence, data archiving and release starting to hit the media.
I look at this type of science as "fad science" in that it is built on social manipulation and political trend in order to achieve validity. Like any fad though, that population is fickle and has a short attention span which loses interest and its support very easily. Eventually, the house of cards to which this position stands begins to crumble as real science demands proper process for verification. It is unfortunate though as the entire field will suffer from the negligence and deceit of a few.
Briffa and Mann.....
This editoral is dead on and clearly indicates the problem. It also reference both Briffa and Mann.... if they had referenced Jones, they would have hit the trifecta.... But Briffa is a student of Jones and much of Mann's work is in collaboration with Jones and any time you find a hockey stick, Mann, Jones and Briffa are pretty close to the scene of the crime.
Is it any wonder that IPCC points to the hockey stick and NO midieval warm period when Briffa and Mann are editors of the IPCC report?
The dirty little secret of the AGW crowd is they HAVE to get rid of the Midieval warm period because not doing so means the modern warm period is not unique.
They also have to get rid of the Little Ice Age because not doing so means the Sun and its Sun Spots are the real drivers of Climate Change, not CO2.
Jones Briffa and Mann have worked hard to achieve that end. They have produced 6 of the 10 dominant papers and have reviewed the other 4.
all getting rid of the MWP and the LIA. But we are the nuts who cant understand science.
Even though we have tax records of wine grown in England a thousand years ago and of wheat grown in Iceland a thousand years ago.... and Corn being grown above 3000 feet in what is now Peru a thousand years ago.
and data sets showing both the MWP and the LIA when Ice Core, Cave and lake sediment samples are used instead of tree ring data.
and less than 1% of the public have heard a blessed thing from those who are challenging the findings of the "community" which we know accounts for a very small set of scientists as well.
and that is a real problem.
it is also a real problem when one set of scientists get a monopoly on the data and those who challenge the findings get marginalized.
Why cant we let the SCIENCE and the Data and the MATH carry the day?
Why does Jones et al stonewall?
THAT is the question.
Let me translate his response as he is using climate science terminology here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
Virtually all serious scientist and their professional organizations have endorsed the IPCC findings, conclusion, and recommendation. The serious climatologists who dissent can be counted on one hand. 92% of the American public think we need to take steps to mitigate climate change. 59% think those steps need to be major steps quite soon.
"Virtually All" :
We specifically selected from data sets to which properly support our hypothesis and ran it through models, tossing out any divergence that we felt weakened our findings.
"serious scientist":
Scientists that meet our very detailed criteria for qualification on personal, public, political and academic grounds exempting any scientists who support our hypothesis even though they may not meet our above qualifications as well as any whose key research is the foundation of our position.
"counted on one hand":
The details of such divergence is insignificant and would only detract from our position. Its small, trust us.
"92% of the American public"
We queried mostly those who support our position and again ran this through a model to which we manipulated the data using assumptive selection of noisy patterns to discern that mostly everyone agrees with us and while public opinion is not scientific, we felt it would strengthen our methodology.
"59% think those steps need to be major steps quite soon."
Due to the growing problems with our methods being evaluated, we think it is beneficial to our position to hasten the process that results in solutions being implemented due to our findings there by lessening the coverage of scientific objection and giving us political power to dissuade those that might ask questions.
Let me translate his response as he is using climate science terminology here.
"Virtually All" :
We specifically selected from data sets to which properly support our hypothesis and ran it through models, tossing out any divergence that we felt weakened our findings.
"serious scientist":
Scientists that meet our very detailed criteria for qualification on personal, public, political and academic grounds exempting any scientists who support our hypothesis even though they may not meet our above qualifications as well as any whose key research is the foundation of our position.
"counted on one hand":
The details of such divergence is insignificant and would only detract from our position. Its small, trust us.
"92% of the American public"
We queried mostly those who support our position and again ran this through a model to which we manipulated the data using assumptive selection of noisy patterns to discern that mostly everyone agrees with us and while public opinion is not scientific, we felt it would strengthen our methodology.
"59% think those steps need to be major steps quite soon."
Due to the growing problems with our methods being evaluated, we think it is beneficial to our position to hasten the process that results in solutions being implemented due to our findings there by lessening the coverage of scientific objection and giving us political power to dissuade those that might ask questions.
This editoral is dead on and clearly indicates the problem. It also reference both Briffa and Mann.... if they had referenced Jones, they would have hit the trifecta.... But Briffa is a student of Jones and much of Mann's work is in collaboration with Jones and any time you find a hockey stick, Mann, Jones and Briffa are pretty close to the scene of the crime.
Is it any wonder that IPCC points to the hockey stick and NO midieval warm period when Briffa and Mann are editors of the IPCC report?
The dirty little secret of the AGW crowd is they HAVE to get rid of the Midieval warm period because not doing so means the modern warm period is not unique.
They also have to get rid of the Little Ice Age because not doing so means the Sun and its Sun Spots are the real drivers of Climate Change, not CO2.
Jones Briffa and Mann have worked hard to achieve that end. They have produced 6 of the 10 dominant papers and have reviewed the other 4.
all getting rid of the MWP and the LIA. But we are the nuts who cant understand science.
Even though we have tax records of wine grown in England a thousand years ago and of wheat grown in Iceland a thousand years ago.... and Corn being grown above 3000 feet in what is now Peru a thousand years ago.
and data sets showing both the MWP and the LIA when Ice Core, Cave and lake sediment samples are used instead of tree ring data.
Yep, I really do not understand how AGW has taken off so far as it has. The data doesn't support them and If I had used their mathematical applications in school, I would have failed out in the weeder classes. They really are relying on politics to carry the day, but that only lasts so long and eventually you have to back your claims up, which is maybe why they are hiding the data.
I remember reading a comment by Jones (I think it was him, might have been Briffa) that was along the lines of "why would I provide you with the data? You are only going to try and prove it wrong!". Sad sad sad.
Let me translate his response as he is using climate science terminology here.
"Virtually All" :
We specifically selected from data sets to which properly support our hypothesis and ran it through models, tossing out any divergence that we felt weakened our findings.
"serious scientist":
Scientists that meet our very detailed criteria for qualification on personal, public, political and academic grounds exempting any scientists who support our hypothesis even though they may not meet our above qualifications as well as any whose key research is the foundation of our position.
"counted on one hand":
The details of such divergence is insignificant and would only detract from our position. Its small, trust us.
"92% of the American public"
We queried mostly those who support our position and again ran this through a model to which we manipulated the data using assumptive selection of noisy patterns to discern that mostly everyone agrees with us and while public opinion is not scientific, we felt it would strengthen our methodology.
"59% think those steps need to be major steps quite soon."
Due to the growing problems with our methods being evaluated, we think it is beneficial to our position to hasten the process that results in solutions being implemented due to our findings there by lessening the coverage of scientific objection and giving us political power to dissuade those that might ask questions.
What's even better is we will have Cap & Trade. Newsflash the EPA has all the legal authority it needs already. We don't even have to pass new law. LOL scream on climate change deniers.
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.
