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.
Ever as in whatever they choose it to be. Don't you know how the new science works? You create a hypothesis and then you mold the data to fit it. Its the new craze in science, its called creative science or sometimes referred to as political science.
Well silly me. I didn't know if ever went back to yesterday, 2005, 1976, 1933, 1867, 1753, 980, 230, 343 BC, 2330 BC or what. I guess whatever they need to cause panic and confusion and to get more taxpayer money to study this pressing and disastrous problem
Ever as in whatever they choose it to be. Don't you know how the new science works? You create a hypothesis and then you mold the data to fit it. Its the new craze in science, its called creative science or sometimes referred to as political science.
The records cover what fraction of one thousandth of one percent of the earth's history?
True or false, in geologic time, the earth has been nearly covered by snow and glaciers three or four times, and totally bereft of ice caps even at the polls three or four times? You guys are fussing and fretting about an invisible ripple on a vast pond, and nobody understands even three percent of the mechanism of the global climate system.
So, NASA has released sets of data showing that this January to June has been the hottest January to June on record.
I'm expecting the people who offered snowflakes in Podunk, TX as proof against global warming to now make a 360 and say it is now a reality due to this new data.
Climate must be measured over thousands of year and trend evaluated over millions of years.
Looking at the "climate" of the last month is like trying to read a bill board with your face plastered one inch from the surface- it is a poor perspective.
Given that the only long term data, the fossil record, clearly refutes global warming, the left chooses to ignore it. This is the antithesis of science, in which one has no vested interest in the outcome of a study, but is simply interested in the truth. The cult of global warming is only interested in any "data" (whether it is faked or innacurate or not) that reinforces thier pre-determined supposition.
Now that we have 7b people on this planet a climate change, natural or human-made, is much more severe than thousands of years ago. We have nowhere to withdraw, are already struggling to feed everyone, etc.
I read today that in Germany they might have to shut down a couple of power stations this weekend because the water in the rivers, which is used for cooling, is too warm due to the heat wave (a water temperature of 28°C is the critical mark).
And a couple of days ago I read that yet another independent body investigating Climategate has come to the conclusion that there is no scientific justification for the allegations against those scientists involved.
Now that we have 7b people on this planet a climate change, natural or human-made, is much more severe than thousands of years ago. We have nowhere to withdraw, are already struggling to feed everyone, etc.
What is the relevance of this statement? Give examples as opposed to previous claims. That is, use some actual evidence to support your claim. you are generalizing and the problem right now with this field is that it is swirling in politics. Claims like yours are left unchecked, vague in their claims, yet founded in no measurable claim. Its just fear mongering. Again, please cite some examples to your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I read today that in Germany they might have to shut down a couple of power stations this weekend because the water in the rivers, which is used for cooling, is too warm due to the heat wave (a water temperature of 28°C is the critical mark).
Provide the proper reference to this event, the research that properly supports your claim. Again, this issue is so political that any occurrence that might appear to support the position on the surface is thrown out and used as evidence. You have no evidence here, only general mention and then you attribute it to the climate issue. Provide evidence to your claim so we can actually check to see if you are properly linking the two or simply loosely connecting them out of convenience.
That is, where at in Germany, what power stations, what river, how are they measuring water temperature, what is the historical records concerning it, is there any variables unaccounted for, where is the research that shows this and the data methodology and analysis for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
And a couple of days ago I read that yet another independent body investigating Climategate has come to the conclusion that there is no scientific justification for the allegations against those scientists involved.
Again, you read, but you do not mention who it was.
If website documents are accurate (and they are supposed to be comprehensive), Muir Russell did not meet with Jones, Briffa or Osborn on any occasion subsequent to the press conference on Feb 11, 2010 unveiling the Muir Russell panel – other than perhaps crossing paths at the March 1 Parliamentary hearings.
Odd don't you think? I mean, considering they were key to this entire issue?
Quote:
Muir Russell was appointed to lead the inquiry in early December 2009. On Dec 18, Muir Russell had 8 meetings at UEA (mostly administrative staff), which included meetings with Jones (chaperoned by the ever-present Trevor Davies) and Briffa (also chaperoned by Trevor Davies). Notes were taken by Lisa Williams of the Registrar’s Office (previously the email address of the Oxburgh inquiry) (Report, Appendix 4), but notes on this meeting have been omitted from the website documents. (I presume that these 8 meetings in one day were merely introductory and that no evidence was taken at these meetings.)
There is no evidence that Muir Russell ever saw Jones or Briffa again. Or that he ever met Osborn (or Melvin.)
Missing notes? That is very odd considering that this was an investigation on transparency among other issues.
Read it, I think you will find their methods suspect.
Not everyone was convinced this was an accurate investigation:
“The Commissioner’s considers that it is not necessary for information to have a direct effect on the environment for it to fall within the definition in the EIR, only that it needs to be linked to a relevant subsection in regulation 2(1). He is of the view that the phrase “any information…on…†contained in regulation 2(1) should be interpreted widely and in line with the purpose expressed in the first recital of the Council Directive 2003/4/EC which the EIR enact.â€
Quote:
The complainant made an allegation that an offence under regulation 19 of the EIR had been committed. Although the emails referred to above indicated prime facie evidence of an offence, the Commissioner was unable to investigate because six months had passed since the potential offence was committed, a constraint placed on the legislation by the Magistrates Court Act 1980.
They were not vindicated, some of the charges were past the statue of limitations.
So no, there were not vindicated. A poor report that has been in question from the begging due to conflict of interest. Muir had worked for the CRU for 18 years in the past. Also, as I explained, there are some major problems in the manner to which they conducted the report. Some may claim it wasn't a "white wash" exactly, though more of a weak inquiry into all of the relevant factors. Point is, it vindicates nothing.
Examples, evidence? You know what the world population today is and you know what it was just 2000 or 5000 years go, let alone tens of thousands of years ago. Add to that the political borders and egoism that were not there during the stone age... Today humans can't withdraw or move to another region if disaster strikes in their home region. It is obvious. Asking me for evidence is like asking me for evindence I like pizza. It is already happening, Australia already said it is not willing to accept any people from those islands in South Pacific that are already disappearing in the ocean as we speak. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/glo...ory?id=9280340
I don't know about the details of Climategate, nor do I care about them. Still, there have been at least two independent investigations into it, probably three if I remember those stories correctly that I have read over the past year or so. And none could find evidence for any unscientific manipulation (although the behavior of some scientists regarding their disclosure policies was criticized) . Not to mention that most climatologists who had nothing to do with Climategate also haven't changed their minds. It's not that there are only a few climatologists in the world, who were all involved in Climategate. Most have nothing to do with it and still come to similar conclusions.
Now that we have 7b people on this planet a climate change, natural or human-made, is much more severe than thousands of years ago. We have nowhere to withdraw, are already struggling to feed everyone, etc.
so you are in favor of what...population control??
It's summer in this Hemisphere. It's suppose to be hot.
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.
