'Climategate' report clears scientists

[YumYum]

Has anybody followed this investigation?

"A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data.

It’s the latest investigation to clear scientists of manipulating climate data after thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were leaked in 2009.

“Climategate” has become something of a rallying call for climate skeptics, who have pointed to the e-mails to suggest there is a conspiracy among the world’s scientists. But a slew of investigations into the e-mails have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing."

full article:

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/145913-report-on-climategate-clears-government-scientists-of-wrongdoing

[Jinks]

this is VERY VERY old news.

" did not manipulate climate change data."

Specifically, they did not manipulate temperature data, or any data which would change the overall theory of climate change. Contrary to the Inhofe report's accusation that scientists "Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions", they didn't manipulate ANY temperature data, to reach ANY conclusions "preconceived", rather, they conformed to ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA MEASURED BY INSTRUMENTATION.

[YumYum]

this is VERY VERY old news.

" did not manipulate climate change data."

Specifically, they did not manipulate temperature data, or any data which would change the overall theory of climate change. Contrary to the Inhofe report's accusation that scientists "Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions", they didn't manipulate ANY temperature data, to reach ANY conclusions "preconceived", rather, they conformed to ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA MEASURED BY INSTRUMENTATION.

The Inspector General's report came out on Feb.18th. Was there already a thread on this topic that I may have overlooked?

[Jinks]

The Inspector General's report came out on Feb.18th. Was there already a thread on this topic that I may have overlooked?

I apologize, I was thinking of an earlier investigation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/106853-investigation-clears-climate-gate-researcher-of-wrongdoing%3Fpage%3D1

The results seems to be the same though.

[Jinks]

Quoted from the report.
http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/correspondence/2011.02.18_IG_to_%20Inhofe.pdf



Specifically, Dr. Lubchenco told us that the CRU emails do nothing to undermine the conclusions drawn by climate scientists with regard to global warming because the emails involved just one of the centers across the globe that analyze climate information. She further asserted to us that even if one were to discount the CRU's scientific assertions, the other centers which independently analyze climate-related information have reached the same conclusion, and, as such, the fundamental science remains very strong.

In addition to Dr. Lubchenco's statement related to the CRU email controversy, Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director ofthe Office of Science and Technology Policy, testified in his opening remarks at the December 2,2009, hearing that:
"The emails are mainly about a controversy over a particular dataset and the ways a particular, small group ofscientists have interpreted and displayed that dataset. It's important to understand that these kinds ofcontroversies and even accusations ofbias and improper manipulation are not all that uncommon in science ... In this particular case, the datasetin question andthewayitwas interpreted andpresentedbytheseparticular scientistsconstitutesaverysmall partofthe immense body ofdataandanalysisonwhich our understanding ofthe issue ofclimate change rests."

..........
We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset. The CRU emails referenced certain "adjustments" to the raw data contained in the GHCN-M dataset. NOAA scientists told us that such adjustments are routinely made to remove artificial biases created by, for example, station moves, instrument changes, and urbanization issues, and thus did not constitute inappropriate manipulation of the data. As mentioned previously, the three global temperature datasets maintained by NOAA, NASA, and the CRU use different methodologies to process raw data.




Best part, there's been a total of 8 investigations prior to this report (see Appendix A, list of Inquiries) . I guess they're all in on it :(


Did they have to give such happy ending?


Our inquiry did not include any assessment ofthe validity and reliability of NOAA's or any other entity's climate science research.

(Duh!)

[Bman]

" did not manipulate climate change data."



and thus did not constitute inappropriate manipulation of the data

So did they manipulate it or not?

Regardless the argument isn't over what the thermometer says. It's over what causes it.

[awake]

The 9/11 report cleared the whole government...not one person got a pink slip. Reports done by establishment bodies tend not see a problem with their fellow tax feeders.

[Jinks]

So did they manipulate it or not?

Regardless the argument isn't over what the thermometer says. It's over what causes it.

What is "it"?

I already told you they manipulated NO tempertatures and tempertures for the range in question have measurements( not taken by cru)

and no, climategate wasnt about what is causing gw. Did you even read the news articles?

[Jinks]

The 9/11 report cleared the whole government...not one person got a pink slip. Reports done by establishment bodies tend not see a problem with their fellow tax feeders.

Do you trust Inhofe's report? Do you trust ANYBODY?

[awake]

Do you trust Inhofe's report? Do you trust ANYBODY?

Not really, there are opportunistic political angles being taken by many people in this whole environmental circus, even by the people who get held up as 'on our side'. I don't need anyone else to do my thinking, government concern for the environment is parasitism cloaked in science to disarm the masses.

[Jinks]

Not really, there are opportunistic political angles being taken by many people in this whole environmental circus, even by the people who get held up as 'on our side'. I don't need anyone else to do my thinking, government concern for the environment is parasitism cloaked in science to disarm the masses.
Inhofe is not the enivronmental movement, LOL

how is global warming policies disarming you? Thanks for admitting you trust nobody. Dont let me catch you seeing a doctor or lawyer!

[dannno]

Oh no.. a tag team of global warming shills...

[sailingaway]

Nonsense.

[dannno]

The way I read this whole situation is like this (an analogy):




SPCC: We really like ice cream cake.

Media Reports: "SPCC: "We really like ice cream cake."

Public: OMGs!! The SPCC likes ice cream cake!!

Media sends in their science shills and Reports: "SPCC doesn't actually like ice cream cake"

MMGWTE (Man Made Global Warming Theory Enthusiasts): "SEE!! The "scientists" say they DON'T like ice cream cake!!"

Global warming skeptics: "Uhh, they clearly said they like ice cream cake, didn't you read about what happened?"

MMGWTE: "But YOU'RE not a scientist!!"

Global warming skeptics: "Ya, but I can read english. Is that something you're able to do? Maybe you should look at the evidence yourself instead of relying on the establishment."

MMGWTE: "Conspiracy theorist!!"

Global warming skeptics: "Uhhh...yeah.. whatever dude."

[Jinks]

Maybe you should look at the evidence yourself instead of relying on the establishment."

Do you believe reading English is sufficient to understand all information and evidence, regardless of context and without some expertise some of the time?

Because if so, that's EXACTLY conspiratorial thinking, that "the establishment" is lying and only "you" "the good guys" know how to read it correctly.

So for the sake of this topic, do you agree with Inhofe's accusation that scientists are shown in Climategate e-mails to have "manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions"? Or all other 9 investigations which state (paraphrased) "no evidence of wrongdoing, and no evidence any manipulation of data which is relevant to temperature or overall theory of GW, understand of climate"

Or are both of these interpretations "establishment" and you have your own 3rd understanding? Do you only trust media reports when sensational stories favor your own preconceived conclusions?

[specsaregood]

""A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data."

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought it was the brits that supposedly altered the climate data, then destroyed the hard copy original data.

[Jinks]

""A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data."

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought it was the brits that supposedly altered the climate data, then destroyed the hard copy original data.

CRU is in England, so yes, most CRU scientists are located there as well.
This particular investigation was looking into those involved with NOAA, GISS, interviewing Lubchenco.
What the hell is "climate data"? (I know you probably think all data is relevant so anything less than perfect is an argument for conspiracy and against AGW, not the case)

[specsaregood]

CRU is in England, so yes, most CRU scientists are located there as well.
This particular investigation was looking into those involved with NOAA, GISS, interviewing Lubchenco.

So this report is telling us what everybody already knew? I never heard it alleged that NOAA people changed data. It was always the brits. Who then supposedly destroyed the original data.



What the hell is "climate data"? (I know you probably think all data is relevant so anything less than perfect is an argument for conspiracy and against AGW, not the case)
Snarky, no need to get butthurt about it.

[Jinks]

So this report is telling us what everybody already knew?


In essence yes, see the appendix, where the cited 8 other investigations which more or less reached the same conclusions. (I believe, if they didn't THAT would be news)

The investigations should've already stopped at the e-mails, as the e-mails aren't even incriminating. Many people don't even understand what they mean when they say "scientists manipulated data" and repeat to cliche "Mike's nature trick".



I never heard it alleged that NOAA people changed data. It was always the brits. Who then supposedly destroyed the original data.


NOAA or domestic investigations was because Mike Mann was named, and NOAA, GISS were used as data source, so unhappy skeptics like Inhofe insisted that they take the opportunity to probe anybody remotely involved (and understandably, being a US Senator who can influence policy)



Snarky, no need to get butthurt about it.

My point was, most people don't know what they mean when they just refer to "data" which is either misleading or intentionally dishonest. So I challenge somebody to correct me in stating the FACT : Specifically, they did not manipulate temperature data, or any data which would change the overall theory of climate change. Contrary to the Inhofe report's accusation that scientists "Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions", they didn't manipulate ANY temperature data, to reach ANY conclusions "preconceived", rather, they conformed to ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA MEASURED BY INSTRUMENTATION.

[ihsv]

Do you believe reading English is sufficient to understand all information and evidence, regardless of context and without some expertise some of the time?
No, reading English is not sufficient to understand all information and evidence. Intelligence, critical thinking, and the ability to understand that "information" and "evidence" are only as good as their reflection of reality, are also necessary.



Because if so, that's EXACTLY conspiratorial thinking, that "the establishment" is lying and only "you" "the good guys" know how to read it correctly.

Fine. "The establishment" is NOT lying to us, and they are "the good guys" and only they know "how to read it correctly". Happy?

I for one refuse to join the Borg Collective and parrot the idea that "conspiracies" don't exist in government. The good little sheep understand that if it does happen in government, it is only relegated to a few innocuous events. The sheep are told that selfish, pompous, power-mongering people (beurocrats, politicians, etc) never work together in secret or behind closed doors to achieve a common goal. That never happens. Government is our friend. Government cares. Individuals in positions of power and authority would never abuse their power or authority for selfish ends.

"Conspiracy" is nothing more than two or more individuals working together, usually in secret, to achieve a common goal. Government provides the perfect breeding ground for "conspiracy."

And climate legislation such as Cap and Trade would be the biggest bonanza for increasing the power and authority of said bureaucrats since the Patriot Act.




So for the sake of this topic, do you agree with Inhofe's accusation that scientists are shown in Climategate e-mails to have "manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions"? Or all other 9 investigations which state (paraphrased) "no evidence of wrongdoing, and no evidence any manipulation of data which is relevant to temperature or overall theory of GW, understand of climate"

No.


Or are both of these interpretations "establishment" and you have your own 3rd understanding? Do you only trust media reports when sensational stories favor your own preconceived conclusions?

Your "I'm smart because I watch TV" attitude doesn't impress me. I suppose by your sentence above I'm to understand that if I come to a conclusion that doesn't agree with "establishment" thinking, or what the media reports, it is the result of preconceived conclusions? Curious.

[Jinks]

No, reading English is not sufficient to understand all information and evidence. Intelligence, critical thinking, and the ability to understand that "information" and "evidence" are only as good as their reflection of reality, are also necessary.


Fair enough.




Fine. "The establishment" is NOT lying to us, and they are "the good guys" and only they know "how to read it correctly". Happy?


I didn't mean it's always untrue either. But I wonder if people who believe in a climate change conspiracy or alarmist conspiracy hold the same standards to all other things they believe in. Seems that they trusts scientists on all other aspects, until it costs their pocket.



I for one refuse to join the Borg Collective and parrot the idea that "conspiracies" don't exist in government. The good little sheep understand that if it does happen in government, it is only relegated to a few innocuous events. The sheep are told that selfish, pompous, power-mongering people (beurocrats, politicians, etc) never work together in secret or behind closed doors to achieve a common goal. That never happens. Government is our friend. Government cares. Individuals in positions of power and authority would never abuse their power or authority for selfish ends.

"Conspiracy" is nothing more than two or more individuals working together, usually in secret, to achieve a common goal. Government provides the perfect breeding ground for "conspiracy."


Agreed.



And climate legislation such as Cap and Trade would be the biggest bonanza for increasing the power and authority of said bureaucrats since the Patriot Act.


That may be. And just because you don't want carbon emissions tax, doesn't mean you have to believe there's no basis for it (there's a difference between basis for it and moral justification for taxation, not to mention utilitarian applications).
That would be like saying just because I don't want to pay reparations to slave descendents and Holocaust survivors, I can't believe that slavery and Holocaust happened.



No.

Your "I'm smart because I watch TV" attitude doesn't impress me.


Maybe it'll surprise you I DON'T watch TV.



I suppose by your sentence above I'm to understand that if I come to a conclusion that doesn't agree with "establishment" thinking, or what the media reports, it is the result of preconceived conclusions? Curious.
No. I was just asking IF that was how you decide what's establishment or what's truth, as if they must always be opposed (as the above posters seems to suggest). Though this post wasnt directed at you, for the record, danno and awake's "I'm smart because I oppose government, and I'm right every time I disagree with the establishment" attitude doesn't get anywhere.

[ihsv]

I didn't mean it's always untrue either. But I wonder if people who believe in a climate change conspiracy or alarmist conspiracy hold the same standards to all other things they believe in. Seems that they trusts scientists on all other aspects, until it costs their pocket.

I can't speak for other people.

It's not a matter of "trusting" people until it "costs my pocket". When someone starts screaming that the sky is falling, and then demands my money or my liberties to "protect me", my first thought is "swindle" or "scam".

Contrary to what is reported by "the establishment", there is not at all a universal consensus concerning the idea of man-made climate change. Thousands of scientists publicly oppose such an idea. However, scientists who are employed by government or other related agencies, whose pay-checks and careers are dependent on whether they are cooperative with official policies, are either silent on the matter or are openly complicit in the scam.



That may be. And just because you don't want carbon emissions tax, doesn't mean you have to believe there's no basis for it (there's a difference between basis for it and moral justification for taxation, not to mention utilitarian applications).
That would be like saying just because I don't want to pay reparations to slave descendents and Holocaust survivors, I can't believe that slavery and Holocaust happened.

I do believe the climate is changing. The evidence is all around us. However, I do not accept that it is changing because of man-made carbon emissions.

Of course I object to the idea of a carbon tax. It's my money, not the government's. If they want money, I suggest they go out and find a real job. What I object to most, however, is that "climate change" is used as a basis for enacting not only the taxes, but more ominously the controls that come with it. An amazingly expanded level of government control over our lives, our businesses, and our productivity, brought on under the umbrella of "fear," should raise any thinking man's eyebrows.


Maybe it'll surprise you I DON'T watch TV.

:rolleyes:


No. I was just asking IF that was how you decide what's establishment or what's truth, as if they must always be opposed (as the above posters seems to suggest). Though this post wasnt directed at you, for the record, danno and awake's "I'm smart because I oppose government, and I'm right every time I disagree with the establishment" attitude doesn't get anywhere.

Sometimes the government is right. A broken clock is right twice a day. But I have seen enough, first hand, of government, corporate, and academic bureaucracy to realize that these organizations are typically run by self-serving, brown-nosing suck-ups. Agendas are pushed, deals are made, and public opinion is manipulated on a regular basis to make these agendas and deals viable.

With regard to how I determine what is truth and what is fiction when it comes to government claims, one way is to follow the money. Where there are large sums of money or an increase in government power and authority, yes, I'm skeptical.

[Jinks]

I can't speak for other people.

It's not a matter of "trusting" people until it "costs my pocket". When someone starts screaming that the sky is falling, and then demands my money or my liberties to "protect me", my first thought is "swindle" or "scam".


So if they were more honest and said "its not about protecting you, it's about protecting other people and we don't respect your private property" you'd be more respectful, though equally unwilling?



Contrary to what is reported by "the establishment", there is not at all a universal consensus concerning the idea of man-made climate change.


If by consensus you mean 100% of all scientists agree, and 100% of all peer reviewed articles say the same thing, you are correct.
But that can be said for a lot of things. So do you have a definition of scientific consensus which you will hold to ALL OTHER QUESTIONS IN SCIENCE?



Thousands of scientists publicly oppose such an idea.


Most of them not even in the field of study, most of them not even qualified to opine on it.



However, scientists who are employed by government or other related agencies, whose pay-checks and careers are dependent on whether they are cooperative with official policies, are either silent on the matter or are openly complicit in the scam.


So anybody who gets money from the government must automatically be dismissed, but people who are paid by the oil industry shouldn't?



I do believe the climate is changing. The evidence is all around us. However, I do not accept that it is changing because of man-made carbon emissions.


What would it take to help you accept it?



Of course I object to the idea of a carbon tax. It's my money, not the government's.


I do too.



If they want money, I suggest they go out and find a real job. What I object to most, however, is that "climate change" is used as a basis for enacting not only the taxes, but more ominously the controls that come with it. An amazingly expanded level of government control over our lives, our businesses, and our productivity, brought on under the umbrella of "fear," should raise any thinking man's eyebrows.

There are long term fears and short term fears. If you're only thinking about living your own life until you die yourself, I agree there's nothing to worry about.




:rolleyes:

Sometimes the government is right. A broken clock is right twice a day. But I have seen enough, first hand, of government, corporate, and academic bureaucracy to realize that these organizations are typically run by self-serving, brown-nosing suck-ups. Agendas are pushed, deals are made, and public opinion is manipulated on a regular basis to make these agendas and deals viable.

With regard to how I determine what is truth and what is fiction when it comes to government claims, one way is to follow the money. Where there are large sums of money or an increase in government power and authority, yes, I'm skeptical.

So if we applied the "follow the money" rule, almost all climate change denier arguments and supporters (especially the scientists) can be dismissed based on the fact they're paid by fossil fuel industry. Singer, Michaels, Lindzen for starters, don't cite them, got it?

Are you against government power and authority? Or only on things you disagree with and believe are harmful to your freedoms?

[ihsv]

So if they were more honest and said "its not about protecting you, it's about protecting other people and we don't respect your private property" you'd be more respectful, though equally unwilling?

If they were more honest they'd admit the were doing it to control people and take their money.


If by consensus you mean 100% of all scientists agree, and 100% of all peer reviewed articles say the same thing, you are correct.
But that can be said for a lot of things. So do you have a definition of scientific consensus which you will hold to ALL OTHER QUESTIONS IN SCIENCE?

There are comparatively few scientific laws. Virtually everything else science "knows" is constantly being revised,changed, updated and... evolved. When I was in grade school it was the coming "ice age", then it was global warming. Now it's "climate change". I am opposed to the idea of depriving people of their liberties, their money, or their productive capacity in all cases (with the obvious exception of criminals, etc.,), but particularly when the excuse is based on an ever-changing, never-quite-understood-or-defined "threat".


Most of them not even in the field of study, most of them not even qualified to opine on it.

What is freely asserted is freely rejected. And you are qualified? Who determines "qualified"?


So anybody who gets money from the government must automatically be dismissed, but people who are paid by the oil industry shouldn't?

Where'd "oil industry" come from? Please stop pulling stuff out of your hat like that.


What would it take to help you accept it?

The scientific method.


I do too.

No you don't.



There are long term fears and short term fears. If you're only thinking about living your own life until you die yourself, I agree there's nothing to worry about.

My life and the lives of my children would be akin to slavery if all they had to look forward to was being taxed by government and losing their liberty.



So if we applied the "follow the money" rule, almost all climate change denier arguments and supporters (especially the scientists) can be dismissed based on the fact they're paid by fossil fuel industry. Singer, Michaels, Lindzen for starters, don't cite them, got it?

Why can't people have discussions without resorting to parroting media-created buzz words, e.g., "climate change denier". Labels like that are created, given a negative connotation, and used by propagandists to silence opposition. And you claim you don't watch TV, but you're quite free with their terminology.

And I deny your assertion that people who oppose Al Gore's mafia are paid by the "fossil fuel industry." If you had any idea of the level of bedroom antics currently enjoyed by the "fossil fuel industry" and government, you'd shit your pants and advocate "underwear-change" rather than climate change.

We don't go starting wars in the middle east, prop up dictators, and meddling in affairs of sovereign nations for nothing.


Are you against government power and authority? Or only on things you disagree with and believe are harmful to your freedoms?

I am against government power and authority when it is abused by interfering with my ability to take care of my family, to educate and raise my children, and to live my life as a free man. Climate-change is a vehicle being used to interfere with all of the above.

And I think you've come to the wrong forum to defend liberty-grabbing.

[Jinks]

If they were more honest they'd admit the were doing it to control people and take their money.


Yeah, and at that point would you be more respectful and not call it a 'scam'?



There are comparatively few scientific laws. Virtually everything else science "knows" is constantly being revised,changed, updated and... evolved.


I agree, so you'd say there's no scientific consensus on "everything else science knows".

Can you give me an example of something there's a scientific consensus on?




When I was in grade school it was the coming "ice age", then it was global warming.


Nope, your ignorance is not the fault of scientists. It was the MEDIA, not scientists who said there was an ice age.

http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm



Now it's "climate change".


Nope, that also isn't as Orwellian as you love to think.

IPCC was founded in '88 (what is "CC" again?), same year Hansen testified in Congress using the term "global warming". So the fact you hear the media and different people use a different phrase is neither the trickery of scientists , nor the Orwellian media conspiracy to confuse you, its' whether you used your critical thinking to understand what they actually mean.



I am opposed to the idea of depriving people of their liberties, their money, or their productive capacity in all cases (with the obvious exception of criminals, etc.,), but particularly when the excuse is based on an ever-changing, never-quite-understood-or-defined "threat".


Exceptions of criminals huh? That's easy, we'll just redefine what criminal means.




What is freely asserted is freely rejected. And you are qualified? Who determines "qualified"?


Glad you asked. I trust scientists who study climate to comment on climate. I trust less scientists who don't study climate to comment on climate, and I trust even less politicians and businessmen who are not scientists. It's not either or, but the spectrum as generous as it is, still isn't favorable to deniers.

"Who determines" is a question of what you're asking. You can obviously decide who you want to believe, but be honest and consistent about it.



Where'd "oil industry" come from? Please stop pulling stuff out of your hat like that.


I am aware that you're not aware climate change denial and "skeptics" of AGW are mostly funded and promoted by fossil fuel interests, not saying it's wrong, but I am surprised you're not aware of it.



The scientific method.

Then it's long been settled.
Don't say "scientific method" in the same breath as "there is no consensus".




No you don't.


I do, I oppose all taxes, I don't want to pay for anything. Doesn't mean I have to deny that climate change, or think "there is no consensus" just because websites I read tell me so.



My life and the lives of my children would be akin to slavery if all they had to look forward to was being taxed by government and losing their liberty.


If the worst of climate change happens, you'd not care about slavery.



Why can't people have discussions without resorting to parroting media-created buzz words, e.g., "climate change denier".


Because some people deserve it. Why can't you have a discussion without resorting to media created misconceptions like "70s we predicted an ice age" "there is no consensus" "the scientific method is what I adhere to but I am not a scientist and my liberty comes first"?



Labels like that are created, given a negative connotation, and used by propagandists to silence opposition.

No, it's meant to point out ignorance and silence ignorant, unproductive opinions. (there's a reason people ban trolls).



And you claim you don't watch TV, but you're quite free with their terminology.


I apologize that I learn from the internets.



And I deny your assertion that people who oppose Al Gore's mafia are paid by the "fossil fuel industry."


I am not Al Gore's mafia, and I can find you evidence the people I named are paid by the FF industry. The question is, does it matter to you or will you believe it?



If you had any idea of the level of bedroom antics currently enjoyed by the "fossil fuel industry" and government, you'd shit your pants and advocate "underwear-change" rather than climate change.

We don't go starting wars in the middle east, prop up dictators, and meddling in affairs of sovereign nations for nothing.


We don't do it for nothing, I agree.



I am against government power and authority when it is abused by interfering with my ability to take care of my family, to educate and raise my children, and to live my life as a free man. Climate-change is a vehicle being used to interfere with all of the above.

And I think you've come to the wrong forum to defend liberty-grabbing.

Why can't you have a discussion without resorting to calling somebody a liberty grabber?

"it is abused by interfering with my ability to take care of my family, to educate and raise my children, "
I'm sure any robber would agree that government power and authority is being used against him for exactly that, but somehow I don't see you crying for his freedoms (so why should anybody cry for yours?).

[awake]

There are environmental issues that need to be dealt with, but not by government; fully enforced and clearly defined property rights are the solution. The rest is a 'hodge podge' of all spectrum of statist interventionist measures - more problems, not solutions.

Yes, there is pollution and destruction of the environment in certain areas, but they all stem from government failure to enforce property rights. Instead the government and its legal monopoly has granted government and corporate interests privilege to trounce individual property rights.

Every frikk'n "issue" is now an excuse to invoke government, The simpltons come running with it at every chance, what they miss is that it is the poison causing the issue to begin with.

[Jinks]

There are environmental issues that need to be dealt with, but not by government;


Such as what? And why?
What is your belief of ANYBODY'S moral obligation to deal with environmental issues?



fully enforced and clearly defined property rights are the solution.


Good, we agree.



The rest is a 'hodge podge' of all spectrum of statist interventionist measures - not solutions.

Why can't it be steps towards a redefinition and enforcement of property?

[ihsv]

I agree, so you'd say there's no scientific consensus on "everything else science knows".

I said "virtually everything else." Reading comprehension issues.


Can you give me an example of something there's a scientific consensus on?

Gravity exists.



Nope, your ignorance is not the fault of scientists. It was the MEDIA, not scientists who said there was an ice age.

http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Blame it on my science teacher, and the text books written by scientists.

You appear to be claiming that the media could create a flap about a coming ice age without the aid and help of scientists. Intriguing.



Nope, that also isn't as Orwellian as you love to think.

:rolleyes:


IPCC was founded in '88 (what is "CC" again?), same year Hansen testified in Congress using the term "global warming". So the fact you hear the media and different people use a different phrase is neither the trickery of scientists , nor the Orwellian media conspiracy to confuse you, its' whether you used your critical thinking to understand what they actually mean.

"Global warming" refers to a specific phenomenon, i.e., the globe is warming up. As increased erratic weather patterns, particularly cold winters and large snow-storms, have become the norm, the phrase "global warming" is laughable. The strategic shift from using the term "global-warming" to refer to one thing, to "climate change" to refer to something else, is evident.



Glad you asked. I trust scientists who study climate to comment on climate. I trust less scientists who don't study climate to comment on climate, and I trust even less politicians and businessmen who are not scientists. It's not either or, but the spectrum as generous as it is, still isn't favorable to deniers.

I didn't ask you who you trust. I asked you if YOU were qualified. Reading comprehension alert.


"Who determines" is a question of what you're asking. You can obviously decide who you want to believe, but be honest and consistent about it.

The question was "Who determines 'qualified'?" Be honest and don't evade.


I am aware that you're not aware climate change denial and "skeptics" of AGW are mostly funded and promoted by fossil fuel interests, not saying it's wrong, but I am surprised you're not aware of it.

I reject your assertion.


Then it's long been settled.
Don't say "scientific method" in the same breath as "there is no consensus".

I didn't say those two phrases in the same breath. Go back and read. Reading comprehension issue.

The scientific method demands that a theory be subjected to experimentation, and the results of that experimentation must be repeatable and consistent.

There is no scientific consensus that climate change is caused by man, as no one has yet offered a way to prove it via the scientific method.



I do, I oppose all taxes, I don't want to pay for anything. Doesn't mean I have to deny that climate change, or think "there is no consensus" just because websites I read tell me so.

I have a hard time taking you seriously anymore, as you clearly have issues with reading comprehension. I have not denied the existence of "climate change". I have simply denied your assertion that it is caused by man, and the consequent idea that man must pay a penalty to government and special interest groups via taxation and control.

And no, you do not oppose all taxes.


If the worst of climate change happens, you'd not care about slavery.

:rolleyes:

I'd rather die a free man than live as a slave. At least you admit that slavery is the ultimate end of where this is going.


Because some people deserve it. Why can't you have a discussion without resorting to media created misconceptions like "70s we predicted an ice age" "there is no consensus" "the scientific method is what I adhere to but I am not a scientist and my liberty comes first"?

:rolleyes:

Dude. You seriously have issues with reading comprehension. You also have issues with putting words into my mouth that I did not say. You're either being dishonest or stupid.


No, it's meant to point out ignorance and silence ignorant, unproductive opinions. (there's a reason people ban trolls).

No, it's meant to silence opposition.


I apologize that I learn from the internets.

First you have to prove that you actually learn, then perhaps I'll accept your apology.


I am not Al Gore's mafia, and I can find you evidence the people I named are paid by the FF industry. The question is, does it matter to you or will you believe it?


Why can't you have a discussion without resorting to calling somebody a liberty grabber?

I don't recall calling anyone a liberty grabber. Reading comprehension issue again.



I'm sure any robber would agree that government power and authority is being used against him for exactly that, but somehow I don't see you crying for his freedoms (so why should anybody cry for yours?).

http://uctaa.net/articles/misc/images/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

[awake]

Under full private property ( all scarce things are owned by individuals or groups there of under free exchange) the obligation to take care of pollution would be that of an owner in dealing with a aggressor on his property. Whether it be dirty air attacking the lungs of a property owner making him sick, or other people dumping waste on his property; the property has a defender, legal claimant. As it is now any government owned land or property is a free for all, there are no exclusive owners with a capital interest in protecting that capital value, therefore no interest in conserving , managing and protecting anything.

These issues are dealt with in depth in Rothbards' For a New Liberty. The problem is that the government is not upholding property rights of property claimants and siding with the party that has the biggest 'community value' or GDP; individual property rights are trumped by government and corporate interest.

If by steps you mean further government intervention to fix the disastrous previous interventions, you are wrong. The removal and deconstruction of government is what is needed.

As for climate change and adaptation; who knows best how to protect themselves with their money, the government boondoggle machine or the people who earned, saved and invested these resources? Historically speaking individuals have always been the best adapters of environmental change under the command of their own resources.

And for your unshakable beliefs in the infallibility of 'science', Marxism and socialism were once touted as scientific, as was eugenics in its day. There were no shortage of scientists jumping on that bandwagon as well. One could hardly find a skeptic - thank goodness there were some. In fact Mises could be termed a skeptic of scientific socialism, a true denier when every one else was marching into hell.

Many great and wonderfully tyrannical ideas and doctrines always use the most trusted terms and people to sell them.

[Jinks]

I said "virtually everything else." Reading comprehension issues.

Gravity exists.


So short of scientific laws, virtually everything has no scientific consensus, fair enough. So you'd have to hold this skepticism to everything from health to safety, as long as it's not established as a simple law, such as gravity.



Blame it on my science teacher, and the text books written by scientists.

You appear to be claiming that the media could create a flap about a coming ice age without the aid and help of scientists. Intriguing.


Yes, I am saying that. (certainly without permission or authority, they can) Or even if I wasn't, if I said "the media could create a false impression using a minority opinion from SOME SCIENTISTS, which does not represent the overall consensus and knowledge" it would be suffice.

You were young when you were ignorant, now you're grown up and you have no excuse not to research this yourself. Unless you don't care, which is fine, but don't say you care and know what you don't.



:rolleyes:

"Global warming" refers to a specific phenomenon, i.e., the globe is warming up. As increased erratic weather patterns, particularly cold winters and large snow-storms, have become the norm, the phrase "global warming" is laughable.


Your ignorance of climate makes is laughable, of course. Cold winters, large snow storms in SOME PARTS of the world, is not out of the predictions of an OVERALL UNSTABLE CLIMATE.



The strategic shift from using the term "global-warming" to refer to one thing, to "climate change" to refer to something else, is evident.


Nope, not strategic. You just don't actually listen to the context and people who use it. I already pointed out the IPCC has been founded for over 20 years. So if any use of CC instead of GW happened since, it's not for any strategic purpose, certainly not invented to confuse (the fact you think so makes you the sheep and dupe, don't complain).




I didn't ask you who you trust. I asked you if YOU were qualified. Reading comprehension alert.


I am not qualified to comment on climate, which is why I trust and cite those who are. And I hold you to the same standards.



The question was "Who determines 'qualified'?" Be honest and don't evade.

Who determines what's rich? Who determines what's smart?
I won't evade your question if you told me what you're asking.



I reject your assertion.

Because you either don't know the information or deny it. Rejection without evidence is ignorance, rejection WITH it is denial, which one are you? Or have you good information to counter it?



I didn't say those two phrases in the same breath. Go back and read. Reading comprehension issue.


You said it in the same post.



The scientific method demands that a theory be subjected to experimentation, and the results of that experimentation must be repeatable and consistent.


Yep, and it is. Unlike denialist claims which have been answered times over, only repeated by the media and industrial interests, then their ignorant followers.



There is no scientific consensus that climate change is caused by man, as no one has yet offered a way to prove it via the scientific method.


Based on what you call consensus, nor is most other scientific knowledge. But there's more than sufficient peer reviewed studies that support the theory of AGW, and has been tested by the scientific method. This includes predictions, reconstructions, repeated testing.




I have a hard time taking you seriously anymore, as you clearly have issues with reading comprehension. I have not denied the existence of "climate change".


I never said you did. So you're the one with a reading problem.



I have simply denied your assertion that it is caused by man, and the consequent idea that man must pay a penalty to government and special interest groups via taxation and control.


You also denied there's scientific consensus, which you later admitted "so is virtually everything else science knows".




And no, you do not oppose all taxes.


I do, and I've said it every time. You can stop lying about me, thanks.



:rolleyes:

I'd rather die a free man than live as a slave. At least you admit that slavery is the ultimate end of where this is going.


Where it is going and where I want it are different.




:rolleyes:
Dude. You seriously have issues with reading comprehension. You also have issues with putting words into my mouth that I did not say. You're either being dishonest or stupid.


Did you or did you not say all of the following?
"70s we predicted an ice age"
"there is no consensus"
"the scientific method is what I adhere to but I am not a scientist and my liberty comes first"

Did I not point out you got your information from the media and not scientists?




No, it's meant to silence opposition.


I reject the baseless assertion.



First you have to prove that you actually learn, then perhaps I'll accept your apology.


Why did you bring up TV terminology if you didn't believe I learned it from somebody?



I don't recall calling anyone a liberty grabber. Reading comprehension issue again.


You did say And I think you've come to the wrong forum to defend liberty-grabbing.




http://uctaa.net/articles/misc/images/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

I would too if I made such an absurd statement and it was handed back to me.

[Jinks]

Under full private property ( all scarce things are owned by individuals or groups there of under free exchange) the obligation to take care of pollution would be that of an owner in dealing with a aggressor on his property. Whether it be dirty air attacking the lungs of a property owner making him sick, or other people dumping waste on his property; the property has a defender, legal claimant. As it is now any government owned land or property is a free for all, there are no exclusive owners with a capital interest in protecting that capital value, therefore no interest in conserving , managing and protecting anything.

These issues are dealt with in depth in Rothbards' For a New Liberty. The problem is that the governemnt is not upholding property rights of proerty claimants and siding with the party that has the biggest 'community value' or GDP; individual property rights are trumped by government and corporate interest.

does full private property mean every inch of land is owned by a private property? how is that reconicileable with homesteading? or are you advocating population explosion to assign owners to leftover land?

[Teaser Rate]

There are environmental issues that need to be dealt with, but not by government; fully enforced and clearly defined property rights are the solution.

How would private property rights be assigned to open air?

[Jinks]

How would private property rights be assigned to open air?

ouch!

[Bman]

What is "it"?

Really? It is DATA!!! And yes it was manipulated. The second part of the quote is an admission. Hello?


I already told you they manipulated NO tempertatures and tempertures for the range in question have measurements( not taken by cru)

and no, climategate wasnt about what is causing gw. Did you even read the news articles?

Climate gate was about manipulating data, and indeed data was manipulated. again...


and thus did not constitute inappropriate manipulation of the data

OK so they found it wasn't inappropriate. That's a hell of a lot different than NOT manipulating something.

[Bman]

How would private property rights be assigned to open air?

Don't be stupid.

[Bman]

^


ouch!

Same for you.

[Bman]

For the intellectually impaired.

Lets say a big nasty coal plant is next to your house and it produces toxins that get into the air and cause damage or harm to your property. This would be in violation of property rights.

[Jinks]

Really? It is DATA!!! And yes it was manipulated. The second part of the quote is an admission. Hello?


WHAT DATA? What does the DATA represent?



Climate gate was about manipulating data, and indeed data was manipulated. again...


PROXY DATA, which is irrelevant to the temperature trends and GW conclusions. (because we have reliable instrumental temperature measurements for that, and we actually use it) Do you intentionally miss context?



OK so they found it wasn't inappropriate. That's a hell of a lot different than NOT manipulating something.

Everything is different when you have context. So if you would actually slow down and understand what it was about, you'd not jump around with short questions like these.

Do you acknowledge and admit what I have told you, that "they manipulated NO tempertatures data"

[awake]

I give you this; Climate change is happening, we might be causing it (a mighty big might, but I will play along), why does it automatically follow that the government needs to do anything?

Nearly everyone's answer to every problem is force and violence (government); how about removing force and violence to see what happens...But no, no, the apes need to control things, now pipe down surf.

[Jinks]

For the intellectually impaired.


That would be you, when you care not about what "data" is in mention and what it means.



Lets say a big nasty coal plant is next to your house and it produces toxins that get into the air and cause damage or harm to your property. This would be in violation of property rights.

Depends on your definition of it. I think some would say so.

[Jinks]

I give you this; Climate change is happening, we might be causing it (a mighty big might but I will play along), why does it automatically follow that the government needs to do anything?

Nope, it doesn't.

I've said that the whole time. Somebody wants to put words in my mouth.

[Bman]

WHAT DATA? What does the DATA represent?

So you are saying there wasn't manipulation of DATA when they admit that there was? OK man have fun. I'm not arguing whether or not the manipulation was of any real relevance. You ignoring the fact is a whole other issue.



PROXY DATA, which is irrelevant to the temperature trends and GW conclusions. (because we have reliable instrumental temperature measurements for that, and we actually use it) Do you intentionally miss context?



Everything is different when you have context. So if you would actually slow down and understand what it was about, you'd not jump around with short questions like these.

Do you acknowledge and admit what I have told you, that "they manipulated NO tempertatures data"

Did you not read my first post? Look the entire argument over global warming is the cause.

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6058/carbondioxidekz6.jpg

The problem people have is that people are making suggestion at what causes global warming. Personally I look at this chart and see a trend.

[Jinks]

So you are saying there wasn't manipulation of DATA when they admit that there was?


I am not going to say "manipulation of data" without context.

Are you going to acknowledge that the "data" is NOT temperature and NOT relevant to the conclusions of AGW? Or not?



OK man have fun. I'm not arguing whether or not the manipulation was of any real relevance. You ignoring the fact is a whole other issue.


Ha! Thanks! So you admitted you're asking a question which is irrelevant to global warming since you don't even try to know what data we're talking about




Did you not read my first post? Look the entire argument over global warming is the cause.


Climategate and the global warming debate, AGW debate, AGW policy debate are different stories. I don't mix them.



http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6058/carbondioxidekz6.jpg

The problem people have is that people are making suggestion at what causes global warming. Personally I look at this chart and see a trend.

The problem isn't here in climategate, you can bring it up again in another discussion.

[Bman]

That would be you, when you care not about what "data" is in mention and what it means.



Depends on your definition of it. I think some would say so.

Sigh

Text from your first post


" did not manipulate climate change data."

again


and thus did not constitute inappropriate manipulation of the data

The argument is DATA not a specific piece of DATA. If you meant something specific you should kind of state that. Don't you think?

[Bman]

Ha! Thanks! So you admitted you're asking a question which is irrelevant to global warming since you don't even try to know what data we're talking about


OK champ. Here is your chance. Explain what was changed and why it is irrelevant. Yes I've read the article but you're the one trying to make a specific point and not really saying anything about that specific point so go ahead.

All I'm pointing at is that the argument was that people say DATA was manipulated and indeed it was manipulated. Now if you want to say they are making a stink over something irrelevant that's another point entirely. So go ahead and just make your damn point since you are obviously an expert on the subject.

[awake]

You can make no future predictions based on these data sets. They are historical recordings. To even attempt to project out of the data is to be 100% wrong in every attempt.

Models are bunk because they have not all the variables and some of the most important variables are incalculable. I.E. If human action is an input in this equation it is therefore impossible to calculate. If human action has no bearing on climate change, then you have conceded the argument for government intervention.

[Carson]

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/thenewera/globalwarmingturkeyrippedofffromRockIsDead.jpg

[pcosmar]

Sigh


You are in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
;)

[Jinks]

Sigh

Text from your first post
again

The argument is DATA not a specific piece of DATA. If you meant something specific you should kind of state that. Don't you think?

And I stated it by asking you what you're talking about, so I can answer most appropriately, and prevent you from quoting it in support of an argument I wouldn't make or isn't honest. What good is stating it, when you admitted "you're not arguing about whether the data is relevant" and why did you even ask if you're not concerned about whether climategate changes ANY facts about climate change?

[Jinks]

You can make no future predictions based on these data sets.


Can and have.



They are historical recordings. To even attempt to project out of the data is to be 100% wrong in every attempt.


So the sun isn't going to come out tomorrow?



Models are bunk because they have not all the variables and some of the most important variables are incalculable.


Confirmed predictions show otherwise.



I.E. If human action is an input in this equation it is therefore impossible to calculate.


Wrong again, that's why they've made worst case scenario predictions, and that's how course of action is recommended.



If human action has no bearing on climate change, then you have conceded the argument for government intervention.
Yeah, IF, which I don't concede.
And no, I am against government intervention (probably more than you are).

[Jinks]

OK champ. Here is your chance. Explain what was changed and why it is irrelevant.


Proxy data, tree ring data was once used as an indicator of temperature.

When the temperature data didn't seem to fit with what the scientists expected, scientists did the "trick", as Dr. Mann did, which is to put more weight on ACTUAL INSTRUMENTALLY RECORDED TEMPERATURE DATA, and create a method that CAN allow proxy data (in this case, tree rings) to indicate more accurately temperature data.

In the case of CRU e-mails, what they said was essentially

"Looks like the proxy data doesn't match REAL TEMPERATURE DATA, SO WE'LL GO WITH ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS, AND NOT LET BAD INDICATOR PROXY DATA GET IN THE WAY" They could've literally discarded and excluded ALL tree ring data, and the conclusions on temperature would be the same.

WHY? Because temperature measurments DO NOT COME FROM THEM, AND ARE AVAILABLE TO US.

They did not do any of the following :
a) Manipulate or change temperature records
b) manipulate or change proxy data in order to create new , inaccurate temperature records
c) manipulate data to create preconceived trends of temperature based on anything less than actual measurements.

Does that help?



Yes I've read the article but you're the one trying to make a specific point and not really saying anything about that specific point so go ahead.


No point in saying it or explain it if I don't have your attention that the point exists, but since you asked, I think I said it above, ask if you still don't understand.




All I'm pointing at is that the argument was that people say DATA was manipulated and indeed it was manipulated.


And you have to be aware and honest that that CANNOT BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST GW, AGW because NO TEMPERATURE DATA WAS MANIPULATED, CHANGED OR OTHERWISE INACCURATE FROM INSTRUMENTAL RECORDS. (not saying you're not, just making sure you don't.)



Now if you want to say they are making a stink over something irrelevant that's another point entirely. So go ahead and just make your damn point since you are obviously an expert on the subject.

I am an expert on the issue of climategate, yes. Not quite on climate entirely. And yes, I am reminding people not to take a media story and misconception into an argument against scientific theory of AGW. If I knew people here wouldn't, I wouldn't say it.

[awake]

"Confirmed prediction" ...What hell is that? Confirming a prediction before it happens is moronic.

Will the sun be out on Tuesday Feb. 28, 2020?

Do the models take into account technological changes and individual choices? They don't.

So if the data is correct and predictions are true what is the method that we deal with this problem?

[Carson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded#at=27

Found this video here;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019671/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/

The above video needs some sound. Maybe this will work if they can play together.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg

[awake]

To sum it all up , the scientist all agree, they don't know.

[Jinks]

"Confirmed prediction" ...What hell is that? Confirming a prediction before it happens is moronic.


I meant, predictions fulfilled by actual results.



Or, results meeting the expectations of previous predictions.


yes, sorry.



Do the models take into account technological changes and individual choices? They don't.


Not always. But by your standard, it can't make predictions based on technological changes and choices that haven't been made yet.

So usually they're based on "if we do nothing and just do what we do" "what's the worst"
Then "if we do this instead, can it make a difference".



So if the data is correct and predictions are true what is the method that we deal with this propblem?

depends on your goal.
Depends on whether you even consider it a problem.
(There's no reason anybody should believe increase in temperature, higher sea levels, severe hurricanes, floods, droughts, agricultural disruptions are a problem, other than by our ethnocentric, selfish brainwashed views)
If you believe freedom and your lifetime is more important, do nothing.
If you believe carbon emissions regulations will hurt the economy, but the results are worth it, you should advocate for it.
If you believe they're worth it if they work, but not sure if regulations will work, then you should think about whether there ARE solutions.
But simply saying "I dont want to give up my freedoms so its irrelevant" is a political and economic statement, not a scientific one.

[awake]

What is the science telling us to do?

[ihsv]

I am not qualified to comment on climate, which is why I trust and cite those who are.

I rest my case :)

[Jinks]

What is the science telling us to do?

Science doesn't tell you to do anything unless you know what you want as a result.

Does a doctor tell a person with heart disease what to eat if he doesn't know whether this person wants to live?

[Jinks]

I rest my case :)

for context, nor are you.

[awake]

Science doesn't tell you to do anything unless you know what you want as a result.

Does a doctor tell a person with heart disease what to eat if he doesn't know whether this person wants to live?

Yes, doctors do this, both by advice and through medical dietitians. Hell, the industrial medical establishment is trying to get fat taxes, food bans and sanctioned tax funded physical activity.

Thank goodness climate scientists are immune from these kinds of despotic grabs for power and funding.

[ihsv]

for context, nor are you.


I am not qualified to comment on climate, which is why I trust and cite those who are.

By your own admission, any opinions you express regarding climate on this thread are worthless :D

[Jinks]

Yes, doctors do this, both by advice and through medical dietitians.


ONLY after they assume the patient wants to be healthy and alive.
If a patient says "I want to be unhealthy and die with pain" can a doctor force his advice?
Can he say "I am right and you're wrong and I don't care what you want"?



Hell, the industrial medical establishment is trying to get fat taxes, food bans and sanctioned tax funded physical activity.


Yeah, I am aware of it. It's based on this crazy idea that being healthy is good and desirable, ignoring the fact that some people enjoy being fat and unhealthy, and denying our freedom to destroy our own bodies.



Thank goodness climate scientists are immune from these kinds of despotic grabs for power and funding.

You think so?

[Jinks]

By your own admission, any opinions you express regarding climate on this thread are worthless :D

they weren't my opinions, they were scientifically supported by qualified and credentialed people. Do you have a better standard ?

[YumYum]

Jinks--one more post and you're a senior member! :)

[Travlyr]

Jinks--one more post and you're a senior member! :)

In just two days!

[ihsv]

they weren't my opinions, they were scientifically supported by qualified and credentialed people. Do you have a better standard ?

Jinks, you're hilarious :) Let's review:


I am not qualified to comment on climate, which is why I trust and cite those who are.

To emphasize it slightly differently, by your own admission you're not qualified to comment on climate.

[Jinks]

Jinks, you're hilarious :) Let's review:

To emphasize it slightly differently, by your own admission you're not qualified to comment on climate.

Correct, and I haven't. So there's nothing you can dismiss as "useless unqualified comments on climate" from me in this thread.

[ihsv]

Correct, and I haven't. So there's nothing you can dismiss as "useless unqualified comments on climate" from me in this thread.

With the rare exception, virtually every comment you've made on this thread regarding climate have been your own words, your own assertions that "X is Y, and so-and-so says Z". Your own...comments. I haven't seen many actual quotes from "qualified" people show up in your posts, only a lot of verbiage from an admittedly unqualified Jinks. :)

And whether or not I accept your sources as "qualified" remains to be seen. ;)

[Jinks]

And whether or not I accept your sources as "qualified" remains to be seen. ;)

I had the impression you don't care.

[Bman]

And you have to be aware and honest that that CANNOT BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST GW,

True


AGW because NO TEMPERATURE DATA WAS MANIPULATED, CHANGED OR OTHERWISE INACCURATE FROM INSTRUMENTAL RECORDS. (not saying you're not, just making sure you don't.)

True also because it's not an argument for AGW. You cannot argue against a point that does not exist.

[Jinks]

True

True also because it's not an argument for AGW. You cannot argue against a point that does not exist.

just so we have that straight. thanks.

I NEVER use climategate to argue for anything other than media hype, and ignorant masses using it as a denialist argument.

[Bman]

just so we have that straight. thanks.

I NEVER use climategate to argue for anything other than media hype, and ignorant masses using it as a denialist argument.

I think it's ignorant to deny that the earth has in modern history been going through a warming period. I also understand that at any moment it could change to a cooling period kind of like it did from 2000-08. Personally I just cannot stand the AGW crowd. Nor can I stand their solutions.

[YumYum]

Here is an article claiming scientists are afraid to come forward and tell the truth:

"The reality is far more depressing, but many scientists are too afraid to stand up and speak out for fear of being ridiculed. Our job is not to be liked but to give a raw and dispassionate assessment of the scale of the challenge faced by the global community."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/24/models-climate-policy-optimistic

[Jinks]

Here is an article claiming scientists are afraid to come forward and tell the truth:

"The reality is far more depressing, but many scientists are too afraid to stand up and speak out for fear of being ridiculed. Our job is not to be liked but to give a raw and dispassionate assessment of the scale of the challenge faced by the global community."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/24/models-climate-policy-optimistic

In case anybody might misunderstand your description, the article is titled "Models guiding policy are too optimistic" SO by "the truth" (in this case) they are talking about what they think are worse scenarios and by "ridicule" they're not talking about the establishment's alarmists ridiculing people who don't conform, but rather, skeptics and denialists that will dismiss it as "alarmism" "doomsday".

Just so we're clear :) This article is NOT talking about scientists afraid to speak out against alarmism, it's about scientists afraid to speak out FOR realistic or alarmist predictions.

[ihsv]

In case anybody might misunderstand your description, the article is titled "Models guiding policy are too optimistic" SO by "the truth" (in this case) they are talking about what they think are worse scenarios and by "ridicule" they're not talking about the establishment's alarmists ridiculing people who don't conform, but rather, skeptics and denialists that will dismiss it as "alarmism" "doomsday".

Just so we're clear :) This article is NOT talking about scientists afraid to speak out against alarmism, it's about scientists afraid to speak out FOR realistic or alarmist predictions.


I am not qualified to comment on climate, which is why I trust and cite those who are. ;)

[Jinks]

;)

what? You don't know the difference between reading and highlighting an article, and commenting on climate?

[ihsv]

what? You don't know the difference between reading and highlighting an article, and commenting on climate?

:D

[Jinks]

:D

got nothing to say huh?