Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Believer's Section
#21
Another useful link for the GW debate: S1

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/0...eptic.html
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Reply
#22
Quote:------------------------------------------------

The ultimate distillation of all current scientific research is contained in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the most recent, May 2007, report of Working Group I can be found here:

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report
The above collection of pdf files is extensive, approximately 120Mb or nearly 1,000 pages of fully referenced data.

------------------------------------------------

The 16 May 2007 issue of New Scientist is devoted largely to the issue of climate change, including a round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.


------------------------------------------------

A handful of other useful links: ------------------------------------------------

Looking for more......

The RealClimate website now has a "one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change", and contains links to many informative sites on global warming. Their page will be regularly updated to include new reference sources.

Start here

------------------------------------------------

Last updated 09 April 2008 - MLT
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#23
Quote:------------------------------------------------

The ultimate distillation of all current scientific research is contained in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the most recent, May 2007, report of Working Group I can be found here:

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report
The above collection of pdf files is extensive, approximately 120Mb or nearly 1,000 pages of fully referenced data.

------------------------------------------------

The 16 May 2007 issue of New Scientist is devoted largely to the issue of climate change, including a round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.


------------------------------------------------

A handful of other useful links: ------------------------------------------------

Looking for more......

The RealClimate website now has a "one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change", and contains links to many informative sites on global warming. Their page will be regularly updated to include new reference sources.

Start here

------------------------------------------------

Last updated 09 April 2008 - MLT
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#24
Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:I prefer to stick with the simple facts rather than embellish them, I accept
I'm dismissive of those that eschew the data, embellish fallacies or push half truths.
I'm not sure how that makes me elitist, discerning I'd accept 8)

I have added bold and size to the above quote.
Your first post on this thread relies / relates heavily to the MBH 98 "Hockey Stick" paper,
as the UN 'S IPCC reports draw heavily on or can be said to be based on it.
(The latest report still has the original graph hideen in some spaghetti graphs, but it is still there.)
It is old news, the Hockey Stick has been discredited, some openly call it scientific fraud.
I'd say politically motivated, disguised as "scientific" looking, fraud, but fraud none the less.

For example what about the data set Mann et al interpretted as showing temperature increase,
when the original researcher of the data stated the tree's increased ring width was a response to increased CO2 levels, not temperatue.
This was because a local to the trees in question temperature recording station had recorded a temperature drop over the time period...
Mann et al knew this. The misinterpretation WAS deliberate.

This data set connected the data sets that finished in the mid 1870s (ish) and
the direct temperature measurements that started roughly from the mid 1940s on.
How convenient direct temperature measurements for the 1930s nicely side stepped....

Does that not make you a hypocrite.
Reply
#25
Derek Wrote:
Monsieur Le Tonk Wrote:I prefer to stick with the simple facts rather than embellish them, I accept
I'm dismissive of those that eschew the data, embellish fallacies or push half truths.
I'm not sure how that makes me elitist, discerning I'd accept 8)

I have added bold and size to the above quote.
Your first post on this thread relies / relates heavily to the MBH 98 "Hockey Stick" paper,
as the UN 'S IPCC reports draw heavily on or can be said to be based on it.
(The latest report still has the original graph hideen in some spaghetti graphs, but it is still there.)
It is old news, the Hockey Stick has been discredited, some openly call it scientific fraud.
I'd say politically motivated, disguised as "scientific" looking, fraud, but fraud none the less.

No quite, I would urge you to have a look at this other link posted by Monsieur Le Tonk about the subject of the Hockey Stick:

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...ge/dn11646

Quote:"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

And...

Quote:In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#26
As referenced in the New Scientist article quoted above the full paper by Mann et al can be found here.

"Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia"
Mann M.E., Zhang Z., Hughes M.K., Bradley R.S., Miller S.K., Rutherford S., and Ni F., PNAS, September 9, 2008 vol. 105 no. 36

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/0...l.pdf+html

The purpose of this thread is to offer links to data, it's up to you to evaluate them and reach your own conclusions, there are areas for discussion elsewhere in the forum.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply
#27
Scientific opinion on climate change (consensus listings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...ate_change
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#28
Uh, Wikipedia falls under the "AGW biased" column, mcabromb.

But, I suspect you already knew that or you wouldn't have referenced it.

Change your post to:

"Biased opinion on climate change (consensus listings)" and at least you'll be being accurate. Not that getting it right is important to you.

:lol:
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#29
JohnWho Wrote:Uh, Wikipedia falls under the "AGW biased" column, mcabromb.

But, I suspect you already knew that or you wouldn't have referenced it.

Change your post to:

"Biased opinion on climate change (consensus listings)" and at least you'll be being accurate. Not that getting it right is important to you.

:lol:

S2 Its a list, not an entry (which is why I posted it).

I guess cross-checking links before commenting on them isn't strong point for you Wink1
“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” - William Buckley
Reply
#30
I see that this section has dried up with last post being over 4 years ago.

I post here with revelations of the IPCC being exposed and Real Climate losing a lot of traffic and censoring civil comments but if considered posted in the wrong place please move it to where you think it should be located.

IPCC Exposed

Climate Audit Report


RC Rejects (Censorship)

The Decline of Real Climate Blog

S13
Reply
#31
I especially liked the last link when it came out. It reminded me that noisy/loud things tend to receive a lot of attention,.......up front. But over time, their squawking can go just so far before falling off.

Truth always trumps hype in the long run. At least to most of us anyway. I can't answer for the Buzzes of this world though. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#32
It appears that Michael Mann, a scientist that studies global warming, is suing two of his critics, Mark Steyn and the National Review over defamation. I'm not sure how this is going to turn out, but it does look like Michael Mann has a case that could very well bring this topic (Global Warming) in to substantial believability if he proves his case against the defendants.

Could A Climate Scientist’s Defamation Suit Shut Down The Nation’s Leading Conservative Magazine?
Reply
#33
(02-03-2014, 09:33 PM)Grizzly Wrote: It appears that Michael Mann, a scientist that studies global warming, is suing two of his critics, Mark Steyn and the National Review over defamation. I'm not sure how this is going to turn out, but it does look like Michael Mann has a case that could very well bring this topic (Global Warming) in to substantial believability if he proves his case against the defendants.

Could A Climate Scientist’s Defamation Suit Shut Down The Nation’s Leading Conservative Magazine?

Robert, this subject has been around for a while now, and commented on within other threads. But in answer to the articles interrogative, the answer is No.

There are just so many hurtles professor Mann must cross, that the grade is almost impossible.

First of all, professor Mann is a self-induced public figure. He willfully went after it, so the standards of proof are automatically much more stringent to prove.

Secondly, Mark Steyn uses flowerly wording to describe things. In other words, he has a very good sense of humour. All Steyn would have to do is produce hundreds of article where he used such language, to show that professor Mann received no harsher treatment than others.

Thirdly, the date for making the command decision whether to drop the suit, or plow ahead, has passed. Almost everyone fully expected him to drop the suit, because it garnered him publicity(remember that public figure part?) and his case was built on same.

But fourthly, if it does go to trial, ALL of his papers, charts, numbers, processes, and even which brand of toilet paper he uses, will be automatically open for tough scrutiny. To this date, sharp mathematicians such as Steve McIntyre, have been trying to obtain all of this information, and Mann has steadfastly refused. Once all this is forced out for everyone to see, the massive exploration(think anal exam) will be on. Any mistake, fudge, or purposeful change, will be rammed up professor Mann's rectum so hard his squealing will be heard all over the country.

Make no mistake, professor Mann is now in one Military Bind, because he failed to stop the train before it was too late. If he jumps off now, he can severely hurt himself. But if he continues to ride it out, no telling what will happen to him.

Personally, I'm relishing the trial, because I have no doubt professor Mann has use fraud and deception to come up with his numbers and charts. And if you just study the chart, it is clear that the hockey stick just ain't happening. And notice that even the Midieval Warming Period has been erased.

[Image: TempChart.gif]

One other thing. This entire chest beating reminds me of what I consider the greatest of the late Leon Uris' works, "QB VII". Its the tale of a Jewish man, writing about the Holocaust, and being sued for libel by a Polish Doctor. It stared Ben Gazzara, Lee Remick, Anthony Hopkins, and others. Its a great series to watch, if you don't wish to read the novel. And keep in mind that the rules of finding libel are the opposite there as here. Over there, the defendant has to prove his/her innocence. And in the US, the plaintiff must prove the defendant's guilt. Its a whole different animal here.

But in the end, witnesses behind the Iron Curtain appeared in court and shot down the doctor, ruining his reputation for all time. This is a Must Watch Television Movie, because the good doctor also has a chance to stop the process and retain his reputation, but he plowed on.

Somehow I can envision this same thing happening to Mann. Oh, it won't be dramatic, and earth shattering. But after a few months, his professorship will not be renewed, nobody will want him to speak, and his name will not be mentioned any longer. He will become a non-entity.

Sorry for the long answer, but there is a whole lot more to be stated, and I don't have the time. I'm certain Tommy will want to comment on this, providing he is able to find it.

I think this needs to have a thread of its own, really.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#34
[Image: josh_uncomfortable_pause.jpg?w=640]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#35
Mann's dendrochronology studies did not match after the 1960s. Seeing this Mann did not say well if the way I derive temperature from tea leaves in a cup/tree rings do not work for the most modern period of instrument record why should I believe that all the prior chronologies using my method are valid? Nope, he chopped off what he didn't like and pasted on an instrument record that did not have the decadal smoothing of the dendrochronological & sedimentary studies.

Mann was on a mission:

Quote:“Dealing a Mortal Blow” to the MWP Overpeck wrote to Jones, Mann, Santer, Susan Solomon and Keith Trenberth seeking advice on how to respond

Penn State for years know, overlooked and whitewashed Jerry Sandusky molestation of children because his activities with the football program generated millions in revenue for Penn State. Mann with is false and sensationalized catastrophic sky is falling predictions has likewise generated millions in revenue for Penn State. Anyone looking into the Penn State inquiry of Mann's scientific malpractice would see that Penn State basically asked Mann: "Did you do anything wrong" and was satisfied with Mann's terse response "no". Penn State then issued a statement that basically said Mann is a great scientist that receives millions in research grants and we have found no evidence of his wrong doing. I am not kidding it really was almost literally like that.

In light of the obvious Penn State whitewashing Mark Steyn wrote in an article that Mann was Penn State's Sandusky of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Obviously referring to the horrendous activities that Mann and his cadre of radical activists that self-identify as 'Climate Scientists'. Mann claims Steyn slandered him by calling him a pedophile.

I too look forward to the per-trial discovery proceedings. Pass the pop-corn.Beach



Reply
#36
I just have to respond to some of this...

Paul In Sweden Wrote:Mann was on a mission:
Quote:“Dealing a Mortal Blow” to the MWP Overpeck wrote to Jones, Mann, Santer, Susan Solomon and Keith Trenberth seeking advice on how to respond

How does Mann getting an e-mail show that he was on a mission?

[quote='Paul In Sweden'] Anyone looking into the Penn State inquiry of Mann's scientific malpractice would see that Penn State basically asked Mann: "Did you do anything wrong" and was satisfied with Mann's terse response "no". Penn State then issued a statement that basically said Mann is a great scientist that receives millions in research grants and we have found no evidence of his wrong doing. I am not kidding it really was almost literally like that.

No... it was literally NOT like that. The Penn State inquiry was much more than just asking Mann "Did you do anything wrong". Read the report here.

And do you know that every single independent inquiry concerning the whole climate gate scandal found nothing other than a reluctance to freely release all their research to the public? And I can say that I don't blame them considering how the denialists nit pick to death anything and everything they can. Even the Guardian newspaper found the same thing.

Paul In Sweden Wrote:In light of the obvious Penn State whitewashing Mark Steyn wrote in an article that Mann was Penn State's Sandusky of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Obviously referring to the horrendous activities that Mann and his cadre of radical activists that self-identify as 'Climate Scientists'. Mann claims Steyn slandered him by calling him a pedophile.

Mann doesn't even use the word "pedophile" in his lawsuit.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#37
(02-11-2014, 12:14 AM)Buzz Wrote: Mann doesn't even use the word "pedophile" in his lawsuit.

...and???
[Image: Tea-price-China.jpg]

Mann's Big Tobacco Lawyers put forth the false claim that Mann was the recipient of a Nobel prize just like Yasser Arafat which of course we know Mann's delusions of grandeur are only believed by the most incompetent of leftists. They also put forth the notion that the self-serving grandstanding activist prof. at Penn State was a reluctant public figure. This is of course absurd and does not give him protection from valid honest public criticism.

Looking forward towards the legal discovery process. Pass the pop-corn & pretzels.
Reply
#38
(02-11-2014, 12:38 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote:
(02-11-2014, 12:14 AM)Buzz Wrote: Mann doesn't even use the word "pedophile" in his lawsuit.

...and???

You said..."Mann claims Steyn slandered him by calling him a pedophile." Mann made no such claim. You were wrong. Deal with it.

Paul In Sweden Wrote:Mann's Big Tobacco Lawyers put forth the false claim that Mann was the recipient of a Nobel prize just like Yasser Arafat which of course we know Mann's delusions of grandeur are only believed by the most incompetent of leftists. They also put forth the notion that the self-serving grandstanding activist prof. at Penn State was a reluctant public figure. This is of course absurd and does not give him protection from valid honest public criticism.

Mann was a lead author for the IPCC which received a Nobel. Now if you don't think that counts then fine... that's your opinion. And Steyn's criticism was not honest as far as I am concerned. I guess we will have to wait and see what the court decides because I have seen no real evidence what so ever to show that Mann manipulated data.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#39
Quote:You said..."Mann claims Steyn slandered him by calling him a pedophile." Mann made no such claim. You were wrong. Deal with it.

Quote:In court, our notably unimpressive judge Natalia Combs-Greene declared, even before we got anywhere near the trial, that she was with Dr. Mann: “The court agrees with the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs. To place Plaintiff’s name in the same sentence with Sandusky (a convicted pedophile) is clearly outrageous.”

It should also be noted that this radical judge has had all rulings in this matter over turned by higher courts.

Buzz this ridiculous matter has been dealt with...
Reply
#40
(02-11-2014, 01:41 AM)Buzz Wrote: Mann was a lead author for the IPCC which received a Nobel. Now if you don't think that counts then fine...

I am a citizen of the European Union which received a Nobel Prize in 2012. I think you should consider carefully the way you address me as I too by your own definition the recipient and holder of a Nobel Peace Prize. S13 Deal with it... S13
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Global Warming Skeptics Thread John L 60 35,618 05-12-2013, 10:06 AM
Last Post: John L
  Friends Of Science on Global Warming John L 1 2,663 08-13-2007, 12:26 AM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)