quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The chief scientist down at the church of Global Warming has just stepped in another steaming pile of dogma shit:

quote:

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up




There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore. The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Full article at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The chief scientist down at the church of Global Warming has just stepped in another steaming pile of dogma shit:

quote:

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up




There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore. The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Full article at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Merc, what scientific knowledge does the EuropeanFoundation have. This is an organisation started by an MP who dishonest about his expenses. So much so he paid back the sum in question the day the story broke. It is nice to know you use such reputable sources.

The whole list from your link fails to provide even one source to back up any one claim, let alone all one hundred of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Merc, what scientific knowledge does the EuropeanFoundation have. This is an organisation started by an MP who dishonest about his expenses. So much so he paid back the sum in question the day the story broke. It is nice to know you use such reputable sources.

The whole list from your link fails to provide even one source to back up any one claim, let alone all one hundred of them.

How can we deny the validity of the science coming out of programs funded by the oil companies and others who could make more profit by discrediting the theory of global warming than by exploring it? Why, they are at least as credible as the great scientific minds, paid for by the tobacco companies, who swore that the idea that cigarettes cause cancer was a huge fraud.

quote:

Oh, ALL the scientists and educational institutions in this case have agendas; the global warmist don't. Got it!

If nothing else, I'm glad the reference allowed us to established that perspective.

BTW - George Bush isn't President and the topic is the global warming religion not cigarettes. However, using your comparison, the global warming agenda based scientists at this point ,and in light of current disclosures; are almost as credible as the "great scientific minds, paid for by the tobacco companies".
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

I think it rather amusing that the scientists that match up with your agenda are the ones you consider without an agenda and reliable. Personally, I haven't seen the matter proved one way or the other. I know that makes me a minority around here, but it's the truth. The science hasn't been completely proven to me nor has it been discredited.

quote:

What I see is that the "there is no man made climate change" fringe is as much a religion as the "there is no doubt that there is man made climate change".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

I think it rather amusing that the scientists that match up with your agenda are the ones you consider without an agenda and reliable. Personally, I haven't seen the matter proved one way or the other. I know that makes me a minority around here, but it's the truth. The science hasn't been completely proven to me nor has it been discredited.

Me neither - so why is the global warming side the only one setting policy costing tax money, jobs, industry, and economic hardship?

quote:

What I see is that the "there is no man made climate change" fringe is as much a religion as the "there is no doubt that there is man made climate change".

Appreciate that - however nobody is requiring a donation or any religious sacrifice. I also don't have to have 'faith' to observe the reality I see all around me and in history. It requires faith to ignore reality, history and a religious belief that despite all that - the world is doomed, the polar ice caps will melt in 5 years, and the thing that give fizz to pop - will kill you!

That my friend, defines religion, ignore what you see and belief in me!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

I think it rather amusing that the scientists that match up with your agenda are the ones you consider without an agenda and reliable. Personally, I haven't seen the matter proved one way or the other. I know that makes me a minority around here, but it's the truth. The science hasn't been completely proven to me nor has it been discredited.

What I see is that the "there is no man made climate change" fringe  is as much a religion as the "there is no doubt that there is man made climate change".

quote:

So ... did the scientist who "lost the data", who conspired to delete and delay data required to be free available under an FOIA, who have been caught in fudging the statistics to give them pre-determined results, who conspired to keep opposing viewpoints and data out of the discussion, who benefited financially, professionally, and politically from their manipulations ... the kind of people you wish to defend?
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

So ... did the scientist who "lost the data", who conspired to delete and delay data required to be free available under an FOIA, who have been caught in fudging the statistics to give them pre-determined results, who conspired to keep opposing viewpoints and data out of the discussion, who benefited financially, professionally, and politically from their manipulations ... the kind of people you wish to defend?
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I reject the notion that one scientist is the entire cause of support for man made climate change. I also reject the idea that not discounting the entire body of work based on that one scientist is at all reasonable. Therefore your question is moot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


So ... did the scientists who "lost the data", who conspired to delete and delay data required to be free available under an FOIA, who have been caught in fudging the statistics to give them pre-determined results, who conspired to keep opposing viewpoints and data out of the discussion, who benefited financially, professionally, and politically from their manipulations ... the kind of people you wish to defend?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Phil Jones is the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were leaked. He has "temporarily" stepped down:

CRU update 3
Tue, 1 Dec 2009

Michael Mann works for the Pennsylvania State University, is a lead author of the UN's IPCC report, and the creater of the infamous "hockey stick graph" that has been widely discredited by statisticians.

Hanson is the NASA guy .... and I think somethings going on with him right now.

Firm

PS ... Here's a quick summary of some of the people involved:

ClimateGate Who's Who Reference

December 14, 2009
DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

As a reminder, this Litigation Hold preservation obligation supersedes any existing statutory or regulatory document retention period or destructive schedule. The determination of what information may be potentially relevant is based upon content and substance and generally does not depend on the type of medium on which the information exists. The information requested may exist in various forms, including paper records, hand-written notes, telephone log entries, email, and other electronic communication (including voicemail), word processing documents (including drafts, spreadsheets, databases, and calendars), telephone logs, electronic address books, PDAs (like Palm Pilots and Blackberries), internet usage files, systems manuals, and network access information in their original format. All ESI should be preserved in its originally-created, or “native” format, along with related metadata. Relevant backup tapes and all indexes for those tapes should also be preserved. Further, information that is reasonably accessible must nonetheless be preserved, because such sources will, at the very least, need to be identified and, under compelling circumstances, may need to be produced.

If you have any doubts as to whether specific information is responsive, err on the side of preserving that information.

Any employee who has information covered by this Litigation Hold is requested to contact Madeline Screven, Paralegal, SRNS Office of General Council, 5-4634, for additional instructions.

Michael L. Wamsted
Associate General Council