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.
Finally, we can agree on something. Bogus data is indeed what we have from the CRU, resulting in models that don't fit the reality. Don't take my word for, just read the email from one of the lead cabal members, wailing plaintively that the Earth IS NOT behaving as their cooked models said it would.
Considering that virtually every NGO and governments around the world have relied on the cooked data and reports coming from the CRU, the whole AGW scam is crumbling at an alarming pace.
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman Rush fans call themselves dittoheads as a term of endearment, it's not a put down to use a term that they use to describe themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet
Afro Americans use some pretty rough words to describe themselves, so is it ok for us to use them in describing blacks?
Apples and oranges. 'Dittohead' is not a 'rough' word with a cultural history that spreads over several centuries. And in this thread is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that the word 'dittohead' is anything but a way to describe Rush listeners. The term evolved out of his show---the mega dittos greeting---and not something dreamed up by liberals. Perhaps anyone who feels it is a derogatory term is just suffering from low self-esteem.
Finally, we can agree on something. Bogus data is indeed what we have from the CRU, resulting in models that don't fit the reality. Don't take my word for, just read the email from one of the lead cabal members, wailing plaintively that the Earth IS NOT behaving as their cooked models said it would.
Considering that virtually every NGO and governments around the world have relied on the cooked data and reports coming from the CRU, the whole AGW scam is crumbling at an alarming pace.
I don't think so:
"Unable to win the climate debate based on facts, science or economics, Palin joins other Republican opponents in attempting to manufacture a scandal by seizing on stolen private emails from University of East Anglia in the UK. But as reported by TIME, the New York Times, and even the Washington Post, these emails do not undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming.
...
But had the Hoaxers performed a simple Google search on the topic being debated in the emails, they would have discovered that the scientific data set was openly discussed and debated in academic journals available to the public for years. (journals including Nature and Geophysical Research Letters)."
This is an excellent piece, full of details that provide a very clear picture of whose boat Gov. Palin has chosen to row. And, I have to say, doesn't surprise me in the least. Birds of a feather and all that...
Thanks for the links. I'm going to go through some of the primary reports that are cited in his commentary. Lots of interesting commentary and discussion there.
Sure thing, also if you want to see what a lot of people are talking about here concerning the issues with the emails, data, code, etc...
Browse some of the prior research on CA there. These issues have been going on quite a while, the e-mails seem to finally get it to the public's attention.
The drop down on the side of the site there contains topics from many areas concerning the field to which McIntyre has reviewed or done some analysis on.
There are some threads around here where lots of talk about the science is going on, but you will have to sift through the banter in-between. Some tempers are a bit flared at times (including my own) and it is simply because a lot of the responses are deflecting any research provided.
Anyway, if some get a little testy with you, keep in mind that some have been reading about this issue for a year are more and the accusations being made by some are simply "uninformed" ones that have not looked into the issue very much, so the replies tend to be at times, a bit harsh or flippant due to expectations of a fallacious response.
"Unable to win the climate debate based on facts, science or economics, Palin joins other Republican opponents in attempting to manufacture a scandal by seizing on stolen private emails from University of East Anglia in the UK. But as reported by TIME, the New York Times, and even the Washington Post, these emails do not undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming.
...
But had the Hoaxers performed a simple Google search on the topic being debated in the emails, they would have discovered that the scientific data set was openly discussed and debated in academic journals available to the public for years. (journals including Nature and Geophysical Research Letters)."
This is an excellent piece, full of details that provide a very clear picture of whose boat Gov. Palin has chosen to row. And, I have to say, doesn't surprise me in the least. Birds of a feather and all that...
Go through some of the other AGW, CRU issue, and climate science topics here. A lot of your claims have already been discussed.
Briefly though, the problem is that the CRU data as well as much of the research in question is a large part of the IPCC's report. The IPCC's report is quoted by MANY administrations out there as evidence and the research used within the IPCC's report (Mann, Briffa, Santer, Jones, etc...) are the basis for additional research out there.
Many studies use Mann's MBH98/99 as a core to the basis of their findings. So basically, the bad research has infected a lot of other research out there.
So, yes... it does endanger the "overwhelming" scientific evidence to the claim of AGW because the fact is, the research is not simply individually replicated results all verifying each others work, rather it is a tree of work to which all rely on each others work to be validated.
Also, science is not a process of gaining more points for one side than the other. Theories do not evolve based on popularity, votes, or more right than wrong. In order for a theory to be established, it must consistently replicate itself and any divergence must be properly explained. This is nowhere near the case concerning AGW.
The news you are reading is political and deflective damage control. Read it and notice they never specifically explain using the science, they simply refer to the issues in political debate style tactics, not scientific response or resolution. It is called "circling the wagons". They are on the defense here and will deflect the specifics.
Go through some of the other AGW, CRU issue, and climate science topics here. A lot of your claims have already been discussed.
Briefly though, the problem is that the CRU data as well as much of the research in question is a large part of the IPCC's report. The IPCC's report is quoted by MANY administrations out there as evidence and the research used within the IPCC's report (Mann, Briffa, Santer, Jones, etc...) are the basis for additional research out there.
Many studies use Mann's MBH98/99 as a core to the basis of their findings. So basically, the bad research has infected a lot of other research out there.
So, yes... it does endanger the "overwhelming" scientific evidence to the claim of AGW because the fact is, the research is not simply individually replicated results all verifying each others work, rather it is a tree of work to which all rely on each others work to be validated.
Also, science is not a process of gaining more points for one side than the other. Theories do not evolve based on popularity, votes, or more right than wrong. In order for a theory to be established, it must consistently replicate itself and any divergence must be properly explained. This is nowhere near the case concerning AGW.
The news you are reading is political and deflective damage control. Read it and notice they never specifically explain using the science, they simply refer to the issues in political debate style tactics, not scientific response or resolution. It is called "circling the wagons". They are on the defense here and will deflect the specifics.
Fair argument. I agree that what I am reading, and what everyone else is reading for that matter, is political and that is, for both sides, the biggest deterrent to having a rational discussion about what is the true impact of the allegedly 'cooked' results.
An examination of the code appears to find no intentional deception and actually seems to prove a 'normal' correcting factor as noted by some of the commenters:
The absolute ferocity of the climate change denial crowd IS a political issue, in that this denial, and these manufactured controversies, are once again embraced by conservatives. This is the anti science, anti intellectual party that relies on fear and religion as their immutable truths.
Outside of these pro pollution activists, the vast majority of the world, as well less robust majority of Americans want to at least work towards finding solutions to climate change rather than denying its very existence, or mans connection and involvement in the process.
You do Love to add you little rants along with the article don't ya. You do know Obama is not the only President that dealt with Global Warming, i hear Bush discuss it severla times, so must also be petty and hate America in your eyes. Problem for you head in the sand types, is you are willing to ignore that scientists all over the planet are saying the same thing, because one report by one group was shown to be biased does not discount all the reast of the data. Is it man made, not totally in my opinion, are we a factor, kinda hard to say we are not, since we already have such an excellent record of messing up the oceans and land, why not the atmosphere? Either way we need to be better caretakers, we owe to our children.
Casper
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.
