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.
I wonder why you never see anyone who doesn't believe Global Warming is occurring do a study?
They never seem to do their own independent work. They just whine that other scientists won't let them see theirs...
It appears that you don't understand where the raw data with which a scientist can do a study comes from. Or perhaps you think that every scientist has temperature stations set up all over the world and their own satellites orbiting overhead?
I wonder why you never see anyone who doesn't believe Global Warming is occurring do a study?
They never seem to do their own independent work. They just whine that other scientists won't let them see theirs...
... If you read the emails leaked from CRU, you would find that there are studies out there. Plenty of studies out there... however, the guys at CRU and Michael Mann here in the good old USA, have done a bang up job of preventing those studies from being published.
google. Roger Pelkie. he has LOTS of studies.
Dr. Nils-Asel Morner has tons of published work on sea levels not rising at a dangerous rate.
and just because I am so kind, here is a paper for your reading enjoyment....
According to Phil Jones, the leader of the disgraced CRU cabal, it is "standard practice" for scientists to NOT share their data, unless of course you are a "friendly" asking to see the data.
If you are interested in reproducing his results...forget it.
Total disgrace.
Agreed.
This global warming scam cannot stand up to the light of day, they can no longer hide behind phrases like "the science is settled" or harrumph about "climate deniers" any more.
I wonder why you never see anyone who doesn't believe Global Warming is occurring do a study?
They never seem to do their own independent work. They just whine that other scientists won't let them see theirs...
Not well read on the issue?
The e-mails specifically dealt with the fact that those at the CRU were using bully tactics and manipulation in order to prevent research that was counter to their hypothesis being published.
There were soft ball reviews for supportive research and extreme hardball reviews for conflicting research.
Also, if you think they aren't publishing then again you are not informed on the issue. There are numerous retractions on previous research being made due to the fact that research is being published which does specific analysis on the conclusions made in the research.
You need to broaden your information sources as there is a lot you are missing on the subject and it makes you look foolish when you walk into a forum like this applying the same old snide remarks that no longer work anymore.
That is, many of the sources you are appealing to are ducking for cover while you are standing tall ignorantly proclaiming your superiority.
Seriously, do some reading on the issue. Only the fringe groups are claiming there is nothing to see and this is no big deal.
"10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field."
The e-mails specifically dealt with the fact that those at the CRU were using bully tactics and manipulation in order to prevent research that was counter to their hypothesis being published.
There were soft ball reviews for supportive research and extreme hardball reviews for conflicting research.
Also, if you think they aren't publishing then again you are not informed on the issue. There are numerous retractions on previous research being made due to the fact that research is being published which does specific analysis on the conclusions made in the research.
You need to broaden your information sources as there is a lot you are missing on the subject and it makes you look foolish when you walk into a forum like this applying the same old snide remarks that no longer work anymore.
That is, many of the sources you are appealing to are ducking for cover while you are standing tall ignorantly proclaiming your superiority.
Seriously, do some reading on the issue. Only the fringe groups are claiming there is nothing to see and this is no big deal.
It is YOUR implication that the CRU is the ONLY organization capable of collecting data on the matter.
What I see are endless jabs at the conclusions that the CRU came to and they have certainly raised sufficient doubts.
What I have YET to see is actual data or research by those that claim global warming is a myth that conclusively states that there is "Nothing to see here"....
Perhaps, rather than telling me "Ya huh!!!!", you could point me to where these scientists actually collected their own data that claims that global warming isn't occurring rather than using the very data that they claim to be suspect and twisting it their way to make the claim...
It appears that you don't understand where the raw data with which a scientist can do a study comes from. Or perhaps you think that every scientist has temperature stations set up all over the world and their own satellites orbiting overhead?
Is it your claim that the CRU has a monopoly on the data?
It is YOUR implication that the CRU is the ONLY organization capable of collecting data on the matter.
What I see are endless jabs at the conclusions that the CRU came to and they have certainly raised sufficient doubts.
What I have YET to see is actual data or research by those that claim global warming is a myth that conclusively states that there is "Nothing to see here"....
Perhaps, rather than telling me "Ya huh!!!!", you could point me to where these scientists actually collected their own data that claims that global warming isn't occurring rather than using the very data that they claim to be suspect and twisting it their way to make the claim...
If the CRU's data is bad, then so be it.
Normander did not imply that CRU was the only source capable of collecting data.
however, to be very factually accurate, there are only 3 sources. CRU, GISS and NOAA. All three appear to have gotten data from each other.
essentially they have "homogenized" themselves.
For some of the world wide data collection, CRU was in fact the ONLY collector and was the only repository of the actual hard data... CRU lost that data and now only have their manipulated results. (This is their admission not my interpretation)
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.
