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.
you are so wrong... If there is no data to support their theory, there is no theory. That's the way science works, you just don't come up with something off the top of your head without any scientific data at all and call it a theory, and supposedly the oracle of all theories at that.
Yes but RG, there is "peer review"
which in AGW circles means your work has been handed to someone who agrees with you that AGW is real and dangerous and that person stamps the work with their approval.
anyone who "doesnt believe in AGW" is fired cannot be involved in the discussion and cannot provide "peer review" because their "Peer" status has been revoked.
which in AGW circles means your work has been handed to someone who agrees with you that AGW is real and dangerous and that person stamps the work with their approval.
anyone who "doesnt believe in AGW" is fired cannot be involved in the discussion and cannot provide "peer review" because their "Peer" status has been revoked.
What a shamockery that is to real scientists who want the truth.
I have documented medical proof that anyone who believes in AGW is a paranoid schizophrenic. Of course I lost the data so you'll just have to trust me.
Peer review (Code word for reviewd by fellows who agree with AGW)
Never the less, RLC, would you like to refute the fact that Jones and company have LOST their data sets?
the bases of all the work that claims AGW?
I don't know. All we have is Michaels claims to this point and he's been proven unscrupulous in the past. Even if true, Michaels could certainly reproduce it, but more importantly the climate community move on years ago to more sophisticated measures. Whatever may or may not be true about that data set is irrelevant to the current debate.
And yes, for anyone who has even the slightest claim to science, peer reviewed journals are the forum where important topics are discussed. That's true in all science. Your lack of familiarity with that speaks volumes.
america hard right has found a cost effective way to deal with global warming, denial.
and the hard left DENYs the fact that there have been MANY cooling and warmings thoughout history: there have been five MAJOR ice ages. The last ice age is still going on, it started about 1.5 million years ago. What people call "the last ice age" is just the last glacial maxima, right now we're in a glacial minima, either way we're still in an ice age. The current ice age is called the quaternary glaciation. The one before it is called the carboniferous/permian glaciation it occured about 300 million years ago. About 450 mya another ice age occured it is called the ordovician-silurian glaciation, and still another occured called the neoproterozoic ice age and it occured between 800-600 mya. The first ice age occured about 2 billion years ago, and it is called the paleoproterozoic ice age.
denys the fact of the VOLCANIC activity in the artic could be causing the melting of the ice cap
why does the left deny the FACT that the magnetic pole switch, which can effect global temps too:
The Earth has several poles, not just two. It has geographic north and south poles, which are the points that mark the Earth's axis of rotation. It also has magnetic north and south poles, based on the planet's magnetic field. When you use a compass, it points to the magnetic north pole, not the geographic North Pole. The Earth's magnetic poles move. The magnetic North Pole moves in loops of up to 50 miles (80 km) per day. But its actual location, an average of all these loops, is also moving at around 25 miles a year [ref]. In the last 150 years, the pole has wandered a total of about 685 miles (1102 kilometers). The magnetic South Pole moves in a similar fashion. The last time the poles switched was 780,000 years ago, and it's happened about 400 times in 330 million years.
The total magnetic strength of the Earth has been decreasing VERY slowly through my 56+ year life. Scientists aren't sure how long a complete polarity shift takes, but it can be as long as 3000 years or longer. Scientists also do not know whether the magnetic field goes to zero before the polarity shifts. I doubt that it does go to 0, because, if it did go to 0, there would be no magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays and alpha radiation away from the Earth, so more things would die at a faster rate than normal, yet there is no correlation of magnetic polarity reversals with extinctions. The magnetic polarity reversal record goes back only 180 million years, so the end of the Cretaceous period and the beginning of the Tertiary is covered, and so are the last four advances of the glaciers Pliocene and Pleistocene (Quaternary period) geological stages.
yet the left want you to BELIEVE that 'global warming' is a man-made thing....
I don't know. All we have is Michaels claims to this point and he's been proven unscrupulous in the past. Even if true, Michaels could certainly reproduce it, but more importantly the climate community move on years ago to more sophisticated measures. Whatever may or may not be true about that data set is irrelevant to the current debate.
And yes, for anyone who has even the slightest claim to science, peer reviewed journals are the forum where important topics are discussed. That's true in all science. Your lack of familiarity with that speaks volumes.
IPCC and NOAA have moved on? Like how NOAA wont use satalite data to record surface temp? Like that?
instead they realy on a subset of land based urban recording locations all known to have serious issues with heat Island effect?
and the East Anglia output is still used. It has not been set aside. there may be other methodologies but their data collection was the starting point and is still used by IPCC.
We just cant validate the accuracy because the data sets are "missing"
and the hard left DENYs the fact that there have been MANY cooling and warmings thoughout history: there have been five MAJOR ice ages. The last ice age is still going on, it started about 1.5 million years ago. What people call "the last ice age" is just the last glacial maxima, right now we're in a glacial minima, either way we're still in an ice age. The current ice age is called the quaternary glaciation. The one before it is called the carboniferous/permian glaciation it occured about 300 million years ago. About 450 mya another ice age occured it is called the ordovician-silurian glaciation, and still another occured called the neoproterozoic ice age and it occured between 800-600 mya. The first ice age occured about 2 billion years ago, and it is called the paleoproterozoic ice age.
denys the fact of the VOLCANIC activity in the artic could be causing the melting of the ice cap
why does the left deny the FACT that the magnetic pole switch, which can effect global temps too:
The Earth has several poles, not just two. It has geographic north and south poles, which are the points that mark the Earth's axis of rotation. It also has magnetic north and south poles, based on the planet's magnetic field. When you use a compass, it points to the magnetic north pole, not the geographic North Pole. The Earth's magnetic poles move. The magnetic North Pole moves in loops of up to 50 miles (80 km) per day. But its actual location, an average of all these loops, is also moving at around 25 miles a year [ref]. In the last 150 years, the pole has wandered a total of about 685 miles (1102 kilometers). The magnetic South Pole moves in a similar fashion. The last time the poles switched was 780,000 years ago, and it's happened about 400 times in 330 million years.
The total magnetic strength of the Earth has been decreasing VERY slowly through my 56+ year life. Scientists aren't sure how long a complete polarity shift takes, but it can be as long as 3000 years or longer. Scientists also do not know whether the magnetic field goes to zero before the polarity shifts. I doubt that it does go to 0, because, if it did go to 0, there would be no magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays and alpha radiation away from the Earth, so more things would die at a faster rate than normal, yet there is no correlation of magnetic polarity reversals with extinctions. The magnetic polarity reversal record goes back only 180 million years, so the end of the Cretaceous period and the beginning of the Tertiary is covered, and so are the last four advances of the glaciers Pliocene and Pleistocene (Quaternary period) geological stages.
yet the left want you to BELIEVE that 'global warming' is a man-made thing....
Wait for some left winger to attack your character or throw out some half-baked insult, instead of directly dealing with the logic of your facts.
I surely do wonder what a real global warmer would say about these words from that article. Of course, I know what one of those would say but he would be so wrong as to make his words totally invaluable.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
So much truth about global warming is in those two paragraphs and this article isn't written by some kind of non-academic.
I was away from my computer too long FERD, so didn't quote your first post. Sorry.
I surely do wonder what a real global warmer would say about these words from that article. Of course, I know what one of those would say but he would be so wrong as to make his words totally invaluable.
Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
So much truth about global warming is in those two paragraphs and this article isn't written by some kind of non-academic.
I was away from my computer too long FERD, so didn't quote your first post. Sorry.
Excellent. So much for peer-review.
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.
