Hacked Emails from GW Advocacy Group; "Hide the Decline" (job, society)
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.
How have these shysters gotten away all these years with keeping the data secret? If you can't reproduce what they have asserted, it would be false. Where has the scientific community been on this issue, to let this cabal get away with this.
It is not a "complete" waste of time. In issues where the facts are less convincining and in question, or if the issue is subjective, I agree, debate continued response might seem.. pointless.
Keep in mind though, a persons own words can solidify their position. That is, the more they speak, the more they commit themselves to the issue. By calling these people out, continuing to let them voice their stupidity, it solidifies their position. That is, there is no way they can back out. They committed and any attempt to wave off and slide into the accepted view becomes impossible. the only way we are ever to truly reduce such attempts of arrogance and ignorance in the future is to be merciless. They must be shown for the joke they are.
To me, the most troubling aspect of this whole farce is not that so many "believe" - it is that so many want to "believe". The result of global warming madness will be nothing more or less than robbing them massively of their freedom and their money - severely negatively impacting their quality of life - and yet millions upon millions want to believe. Mind-boggling - utterly impossible to understand - and yet here we are. That is what we're up against.
It is clear that their thought process - and I use the term "thought" loosely - bears no resemblance to yours or mine. They are not influenced or swayed by facts and statistics. They have adopted a political ideology that shuns all common sense and reason and it is so deeply entrenched that it is now essentially faith based. That is what we're dealing with and it is damage that has been 30+ years in the making.
One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline. The reviewer stated very clearly:
Quote:
Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)
Just wow.
Here's what you get when you don't "hide the decline";
I know you right wingers are predominantly stupid, but hey, this question is worth a try: why isn't this story all over the US press? Cherry picking emails from some obscure college, that's a real scandal ya got there.
I know you right wingers are predominantly stupid, but hey, this question is worth a try: why isn't this story all over the US press? Cherry picking emails from some obscure college, that's a real scandal ya got there.
Quote:
The Climatic Research Unit is widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models.
Perhaps this is why they are so reluctant to release the raw data - they no longer have it. If they don't have it, should ANY credibility be bestowed to the work that they have already done? After all we have read of their behavior and unethical practices, I say no.
Isn't reproducibility one of the key factors in good, honest, ethical scientific method?
Once again you prove your confusion between data and software. They do not gather raw data, they receive it from different sources and run it through the software. Your friend confirmed the data originated from 40 Australian weather observation stations. You keep flip flopping between accusing them of tweaking the data and tweaking the software. Which is it? Did they tweak the data, or the software? Make up your mind.
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.