U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-13-2009, 07:26 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,116,329 times
Reputation: 2606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Is that the same website that fact checked the SNL skit of obama? The saem bunch that fact checked Palin autobiography (unprecedented, btw).

Yeah, they have no agenda at all.

They are part of the liberal MSM who have been invested, completely and thoroughly, in the progress of AGW.

It is very telling though that they had to come out "absolving" the cabal of the worst kind of scientific hoax.

It tells you they are losing the "RP" campaign. There are about 2 weeks behind the curve.
Wow, read those fact check sites Sanrene, they have no factual evidence in them and are simply evasive claims of support using various statements from the administrations as evidence of their claim, much like those are doing on the news when they attempt to defend it.

They should name them factspin.org. *chuckle*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2009, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Indiana
2,047 posts, read 1,307,648 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Conservative Hunters And Fishermen Back Climate Change Legislation

Hunters and fishers, afraid that global warming could hamper their favorite pastime, have stepped into the lobbying fray for climate change legislation.

Conservative Hunters And Fishermen Back Climate Change Legislation

Different people have various reasons for taking the issue seriously, but like it or not, the majority are willing to take responsibility and do what it takes to reduce CO2 levels.
dont we first have to astablish for sure that the earth is really,really warming up and then, big if, IF the earth is warmng, 2nd we have to establish for sure what is causing,the earth to warm up. I dont believe when you say the majority are willing to take resposibility right now. because right now we dont know what to take reposibility for especialy with climate gate.why the secretcy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 07:59 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,116,329 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, talk about a reliable scientific source!
No, it isn't that. Follow their sources, they are factual analysis which shows using the evidence why, they are merely links to claims made which state their points are correct, yet do not contest the evidence directly or show why it is correct or incorrect. Seriously, read them closely and follow all the sources.

For example:

Quote:
World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. (The hottest year on record was 1998.) This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
First off, the WMO's research was reviewed by several of those implicated in the scandal. Also, it doesn't link to the research, but a news story which reports the claim of the WMO to which it ALSO does not link any research or provide direct examples to its claim, rather it is an press release with a link to a graph with no proper citations to the research which provides these results. Here is a statement directly at the top of that press release.

Note also the top of the press release:

<global climate statement 2009>

Quote:
For use of the information media
Not an official record
There are no citations are reference to actual research, simply summaries of claims without proper support. (When you fact check, you check facts, not claims made).

They link the following graph:



In fact checks haste to support their bias, they failed to even deal with problems concerning the global station data sets.

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That?


Also, there are extreme problems with bias in the "news sources" to which are claiming they are "reporting the facts". They aren't reporting facts, they are using sources to which they rely on the "word" of the source as the fact with no evidence to support what they are saying. Terrible reporting indeed.

AP’s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers – time for AP to do something about it « Watts Up With That?


You can go through that entire editorial (and I do say editorial because it is in no way shape or form a fact checking read) and show how each and every "fact check" is simply regurgitated defense lines of those involved. Heck, most of the sources they use are controlled by many of those implicated.

Do some more reading. If they can't point to the research exactly, if they can not contest the objections specifically, they are simply a commercial for AGW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 08:06 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,116,329 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Right....no references. Uh huh. They're only right straight from the horses mouth.
I think the problem is that they do not realize it is from the horses mouth, but since they never look deeper than administrative summaries and "fact checking" sites which use those summaries as evidence, they never realize who is behind them.

It is like using the SS as a source to verify Hitlers claims to which the SS uses reports created and reviewed by Hitler to verify Hitler himself. Politics at its best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,647 posts, read 5,360,413 times
Reputation: 4793
For people truly interested in facts, I suggest exploring the wealth of research documented on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website. In particular, see the WG1: The Physical Science Basis.
Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Chapter 2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Chapter 3 Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Supplementary Material: Appendix 3.B. Techniques, Error Estimation and Measurement Systems (including references)
Chapter 4 Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Chapter 5 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate
Supplementary Material: Appendix 6.A. Glossary for Terms Specific to Chapter 6
Chapter 7 Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Chapter 8 Climate Models and their Evaluation
Supplementary Material: Appendix 8.A. Supplementary Figures and Tables
Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Supplementary Material: Appendices & References
Chapter 10 Global Climate Projections
Supplementary Material: Supplementary Details, Tables & Figures
Figures Showing Individual Model Results for Different Climate Variables (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/Ch10/Ch10_indiv-maps.html - broken link)
Chapter 11 Regional Climate Projections
Supplementary Material: Appendix 11. Tables, Figures, References
There is a wealth of emotion-based denial totally bereft of facts out there, and on the other side, there's a wealth of research based on direct observations and measurements. For most rational human beings, figuring out which one to believe is easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,086 posts, read 99,190,340 times
Reputation: 31569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
No, it isn't that. Follow their sources, they are factual analysis which shows using the evidence why, they are merely links to claims made which state their points are correct, yet do not contest the evidence directly or show why it is correct or incorrect. Seriously, read them closely and follow all the sources.
I was actually referring to the picture of the graffititi, which didn't copy. I should have been more clear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 09:38 AM
 
23,876 posts, read 16,133,022 times
Reputation: 8838
Quote:
Originally Posted by gysmo View Post
dont we first have to astablish for sure that the earth is really,really warming up and then, big if, IF the earth is warmng, 2nd we have to establish for sure what is causing,the earth to warm up. I dont believe when you say the majority are willing to take resposibility right now. because right now we dont know what to take reposibility for especialy with climate gate.why the secretcy
The Earth is warming. The debate is whether or not it is being accelerated by human's use of dirty energy. What secrecy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 09:43 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,116,329 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
For people truly interested in facts, I suggest exploring the wealth of research documented on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website. In particular, see the WG1: The Physical Science Basis.
Chapter 1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Chapter 2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Chapter 3 Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Supplementary Material: Appendix 3.B. Techniques, Error Estimation and Measurement Systems (including references)
Chapter 4 Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Chapter 5 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate
Supplementary Material: Appendix 6.A. Glossary for Terms Specific to Chapter 6
Chapter 7 Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Chapter 8 Climate Models and their Evaluation
Supplementary Material: Appendix 8.A. Supplementary Figures and Tables
Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Supplementary Material: Appendices & References
Chapter 10 Global Climate Projections
Supplementary Material: Supplementary Details, Tables & Figures
Figures Showing Individual Model Results for Different Climate Variables (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/Ch10/Ch10_indiv-maps.html - broken link)
Chapter 11 Regional Climate Projections
Supplementary Material: Appendix 11. Tables, Figures, References
There is a wealth of emotion-based denial totally bereft of facts out there, and on the other side, there's a wealth of research based on direct observations and measurements. For most rational human beings, figuring out which one to believe is easy.
You are quoting the IPCC as evidence to support the position?

Here are links in chronological order dealing with issues concerning the IPCC and the research they are using since 2005. This information and the analysis done by someone who was also a reviewer of the AR4 (the current IPCC report to which you are linking). There are a few in there as well authored by some others.

This will put the issues in context. The IPCC is in question here and there are serious issues with their findings and policies.


2005

The Significance of the Hockey Stick « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

A Strange Truncation of the Briffa MXD Series « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 1[1990] – Comment #1 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 1990 – An Extended Excerpt « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 1992 – Supplement « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 1995 [SAR] – An Extended Excerpt « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Wigley and Kelly 1990 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Crowley and Kim, 1995 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Procedures « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Conflict of Interest #1 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Conflict of Interest #2 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Crowley and North [1991] « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Ian Castles on IPCC Economic Assumptions « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Mosquitos, malaria and the IPCC "consensus" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

2006

IPCC 4AR and Ammann « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC 4AR – Access to Review Comments « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC WG1 Publication deadlines « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Acceptance Dates « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and Glaciers « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

2007

IPCC and Solar Correlations « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Schedule: WG1 Report Available Only to Insiders Until May 2007 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fixing the Facts to the Policy « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

SPM4 Preview: The Hockey Stick Lives « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

SPM4 Eve « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

SPM and Proxies « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Paleoclimate Lead Author on M&M « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Report on IPCC WG1 Session « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

The "First" Assessed Likely Range for Climate Sensitivity « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Hansen Calls IPCC Adjustments "Ad Hoc" and of "Dubious Validity" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and Data Access « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC AR4 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and the Al Gore Hockey Stick « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Swindle and Inconvenient Divergence « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

von Storch et al 2004 in IPCC AR4 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

More on the Divergence Problem « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

The Maestro is in da house « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Briffa and MBH99 Smoothing « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Swindle and the IPCC TAR Spaghetti Graph « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Cunning IPCC Bureaucrats « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

FOI Request to NOAA « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC: AR4 guidance on uncertainty « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

How IPCC AR4 authors defended the Briffa data deletions « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Review Comments Now Online « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and the Briffa Deletions « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

The New "IPCC Test" for Long-Term Persistence « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Review Comments on the "IPCC Test" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC AR4: No skill in scientific forecasting « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC AR4 and the Return of Chucky – He's Baaack! « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Figure SPM.1 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

2008

IPCC on Radiative Forcing #1: AR1(1990) « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC: "Lively Interchanges" as a Form of Due Diligence « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

AR4: "Now-Classic" Results on Cloud Uncertainty are "Unsettling" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC and Radiative Forcing #2: 1992-AR2 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC "Explains" the Greenhouse Effect « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Sir John Houghton on the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Review Editor Comments « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

More on Functional Forms: Wigley 1987 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Radiative Forcing #1 « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Did IPCC Review Editor Mitchell Do His Job? « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

IPCC Review Editors Comments Online « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

"No Working Papers", "No Correspondence" « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Where did IPCC 1990 Figure 7c Come From? « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

AR 4 Chapter 6 – "In Press" and "Accepted" Articles « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fortress Met Office « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fortress CRU « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fortress CRU #2: Confidential Agent Ammann « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Fortress Met Office continued « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

2009

EPA Quality Guidelines: the NAS Panel and IPCC « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Boundary Layer Clouds: IPCC Bowdlerizes Bony « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

WGIII and those unarchived comments and RE reports « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

Yamal and IPCC AR4 Review Comments « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]

AR4 WGIII Lead Authors' Responses online – at last! « Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 09:50 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,116,329 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
The Earth is warming. The debate is whether or not it is being accelerated by human's use of dirty energy. What secrecy?
Yes, warming has occurred, but there is an omission of context.

The claim is that warming is unprecedented. This is not true as in order to establish this, one needs to erase the MWP which is exactly the issue with Mann and Briffa and also a problem with the display of the most recent warming trends. Once the MWP is evaluated, the position of attributing it to man obviously becomes irrelevant as the results show that it is unlikely a man made occurrence.

Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale « Watts Up With That?


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2009, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 15,834,342 times
Reputation: 3123
There is no way to tell since the raw data they used to determine temperatures has been destroyed. Now why would they do that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top