And meanwhile, another video of Andrew Breitbart flipping out:

Saw this when it first came out. His entire series is worth a watch.

Scientists are bad at public relations, who would have thought.

Kudos to potholer54 for continuing the crusade to get people to go to the "source", but the real struggle we're facing is that the great masses of information consumers have no desire to check for sources.

It's striking how lacking of citations so many opinionated posters lack - they have plenty of opinions, but never give a source.

re: #1 Charles

And meanwhile, another video of Andrew Breitbart flipping out:

[Video]

Wow, he's like a steroid rage guy without the muscles. By comparison you should watch the video of Rachael Maddow talking with the Birch Society folks. There's certainly no love between them but they had a rational, calm and polite discussion. Brietbart is more frothing than the Birch society.

re: #3 freetoken

Kudos to potholer54 for continuing the crusade to get people to go to the "source", but the real struggle we're facing is that the great masses of information consumers have no desire to check for sources.

It's striking how lacking of citations so many opinionated posters lack - they have plenty of opinions, but never give a source.

Clear something up for me, because I keep reading differing opinions on this, and I can't seem to get a hold of it... the MWP, was there one or not?

re: #1 Charles

Wow, the end of the tape is very telling.

Typically, I only read (or make that look) at the Daily Mail for stuff like this.

Brwaaak
BrwaaaK!

re: #8 albusteve

Brwaaak
BrwaaaK!

May I ask who you think is parroting?

re: #9 Gus 802

May I ask who you think is parroting?

And was my question at re: #5 Walter L. Newton hard to answer, or at least does someone have a link to a definitive answer... because I can't seem to find a consensus.

re: #5 Walter L. Newton

Clear something up for me, because I keep reading differing opinions on this, and I can't seem to get a hold of it... the MWP, was there one or not?

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

re: #9 Gus 802

May I ask who you think is parroting?

it's right up on the post...didn't you read it?

re: #1 Charles

And meanwhile, another video of Andrew Breitbart flipping out:

[Video]

Fox News needs to give that man a show. I bet he'd kill Beck in the ratings.

:sigh:

Evening..all

re: #13 Slumbering Behemoth

Fox News needs to give that man a show. I bet he'd kill Beck in the ratings.

:sigh:

I think Fox needs to give Laura Bush a show. She's not insane, and everyone likes her.

I have several personal opinions on this stuff. On the one hand, the more people think global warming is junk science, the more people there will be who are likely to want to buy the properties I own that are less than 6 feet above high tide, before I expire.

On the other hand, when this appears to becomes the driving force making anti science respectable at the level of Congress and above, in the nation that has done more for science than any other, then I fear there is something rotten somewhere, and it isn't in Denmark.

re: #9 Gus 802

May I ask who you think is parroting?

I like dried parrot..cause it's polly unsaturated

re: #17 PT Barnum

I like dried parrot..cause it's polly unsaturated

ding

re: #11 Charles

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

Good article... but, this is why I asked and I was hoping for some consensus... I keep getting different stories or variations of the stories from the people who should be somewhere in the same ballpark... (the BBC report on statement by Phil Jones)...

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

Damn do I love Potholer54.

re: #1 Charles

And meanwhile, another video of Andrew Breitbart flipping out:

[Video]

And now... a tap dance.

re: #21 austin_blue

And now... a tap dance.

From Ann Coulter at CPAC

[Link: tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

re: #1 Charles

And meanwhile, another video of Andrew Breitbart flipping out:

[Video]

He sounds drunk.

re: #22 PT Barnum

From Ann Coulter at CPAC

[Link: tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

Ann Coulter?...I thought you'd post some J Hiatt OT...ho hum

re: #24 albusteve

Ann Coulter?...I thought you'd post some J Hiatt OT...ho hum

Just for you Steve

Evening lizards.

re: #19 Walter L. Newton

Walter, you do understand what the word "Unlikely" means don't you? Scientists are not going to say "it's certain that... blah blah blah " unless it's testable or proven beyond any doubt at all. Few things are like that.
Here's something else from the same article:

"The major datasets mostly agree," he said. "If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive."

You are a programmer, the datasets are out there, I know because I've gone out and downloaded some of them just to check for myself. As a programmer and an all around handy guy on the internet, I would wager that you could construct your own model and prove or disprove to your own satisfaction.

re: #15 SanFranciscoZionist

I think Fox needs to give Laura Bush a show. She's not insane, and everyone likes her.

That wouldn't sell. People don't want to watch sane, they want to watch bat-shit crazy, and they want it in super-sized portions.

re: #28 Slumbering Behemoth

That wouldn't sell. People don't want to watch sane, they want to watch bat-shit crazy, and they want it in super-sized portions.

Large portions of things that are bad for us...the American Way...

re: #16 Naso Tang

then I fear there is something rotten somewhere, and it isn't in Denmark.

Last December's UN climate conference notwithstanding.

re: #26 NJDhockeyfan

Evening lizards.

Hi there! Just got home from the Saturday night party in Indiana..
How is everyone? I've got great stories

re: #27 Thanos

Walter, you do understand what the word "Unlikely" means don't you? Scientists are not going to say "it's certain that... blah blah blah " unless it's testable or proven beyond any doubt at all. Few things are like that.

[snip]

You never answered my question, did you? Where in Jones quote above did he say "unlikely?" Let's stick to that one question about the MWP. He said...

"But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period."

Yet the article that Charles linked to indicated something quite a bit different, regional warming and not even as warm as current models.

Instead of relying on what the BBC journalist wrote about the interview -- what you're citing is NOT a direct quote from Jones -- why not go straight to the source:

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

re: #27 Thanos

Follow up: I can't find any use of the work "unlikely" in either article, the one Charles linked to or the one I did on the BBC website?

re: #31 HoosierHoops

Hi there! Just got home from the Saturday night party in Indiana..
How is everyone? I've got great stories

Oh, do tell.

re: #33 Charles

Instead of relying on what the BBC journalist wrote about the interview -- what you're citing is NOT a direct quote from Jones -- why not go straight to the source:

Well, so sorry, I quoted the BBC. Does it bother you a bit that we have at least two versions of the same story from the same source, the BBC. Certainly makes me wonder why one article states one thing and the other states another.

And the article I linked to certainly didn't sound like some "summary" or condensation of the material, the statement was succinct and clear.

So, which article do I believe?

re: #19 Walter L. Newton

The reason we can't be sure about a global or non global warming is because, obviously, we don't have records worldwide, but we have reasonable ones from Europe, right?

Now, when Americans think of Europe (LGF members are different of course) they tend to think it's all due East. In truth, starting at the north, Nome Alaska is at about the same latitude as Stockholm or Oslo. London is the same level as Calgary, Canada. Boston is level with Barcelona, Spain. Minneapolis with the main wine region of France.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the reason for this strange difference in latitude and climate is not global climate but Atlantic ocean currents, and it doesn't take a genius to imagine that such areas could have considerable sensitivity to small changes in, say, the Gulf Stream.

Too bad most rocket scientists and Geniuses are too smart to go into politics//

re: #34 Walter L. Newton

Follow up: I can't find any use of the work "unlikely" in either article, the one Charles linked to or the one I did on the BBC website?

It's unlikely that word in is either article.

re: #36 Walter L. Newton

Well, so sorry, I quoted the BBC. Does it bother you a bit that we have at least two versions of the same story from the same source, the BBC. Certainly makes me wonder why one article states one thing and the other states another.

And the article I linked to certainly didn't sound like some "summary" or condensation of the material, the statement was succinct and clear.

So, which article do I believe?

The one that has Phil Jones's own words.

re: #19 Walter L. Newton

Yale professor Walter Russell Mead, an AGW believer writes "The global warming movement as we have known it is dead".

A true believer Mead writes"let me emphasize, all hype aside,(this) is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources".

So what killed the movement? Professor Mead explains here.

re: #39 Charles

The one that has Phil Jones's own words.

I wonder if the BBC will make a correction on the article I linked to?

re: #32 Walter L. Newton

You never answered my question, did you? Where in Jones quote above did he say "unlikely?" Let's stick to that one question about the MWP. He said...

"But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period."

Yet the article that Charles linked to indicated something quite a bit different, regional warming and not even as warm as current models.

Umm You seemed to be making a statement, not asking a question. I didn't see a question mark ? in your original post? You seemed concerned, so I pointed out a way you could satisfy your curiosity.

Obviously I'm talking the Medieval issue here, in case that is not clear.

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Wow, the end of the tape is very telling.

I thought so too:

Breitbart: You Caucasian Americans of the political Left: John Podesta, Wade Rathkey and Dale Rathkey, have been in charge of the black inner city community for eternity, and you've turned it into Hell. You turned intact black families into broken apart black families.
...
Why don't you go fix the inner city instead of going after people that expose it.

We had a brief discussion of the video at the tail end of the previous thread. These were my thoughts on that last sentence:

It implies that there's a segment of the American population whose representation he indifferently cedes to his political opponents, and in fact his only interest in that community is the political advantage he can get by exposing/smearing it. He also finally appears to be explicitly connecting his flogging of the O'Keefe Acorn tapes to some sort of indictment of the "inner city".

re: #35 NJDhockeyfan

Oh, do tell.

It was a great party! Overall.. I love Hoosiers.. Generally good people..There are some bad folks here..But not tonight...Good folks

re: #40 charlesincharge

Yale professor Walter Russell Mead, an AGW believer writes "The global warming movement as we have known it is dead".

A true believer Mead writes"let me emphasize, all hype aside,(this) is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources".

So what killed the movement? Professor Mead explains here.

I don't believe the AGW movement (really, it's not a movement, it's fucking science) is over, not in any way you mean it.

There has been problems at the CRU and the IPCC, in my opinion, and even in the opinion of IPCC scientist and the University itself.

These problems mainly revolve around process, procedure and policy problems, not in the whole of AGW science.

But, like anything, you want to shake out the problems and keep the science good.

re: #40 charlesincharge

Yale professor Walter Russell Mead, an AGW believer writes "The global warming movement as we have known it is dead".

A true believer Mead writes"let me emphasize, all hype aside,(this) is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources".

So what killed the movement? Professor Mead explains here.

Now it has failed. Not everything that has come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Unit is false, but enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions can best serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of the picture.

I was under the impression that so little of the information was tainted that it made no difference, especially since it was uncovered by the very scientists that published it in the first place...I wonder how much is enough?

re: #42 Thanos

Umm You seemed to be making a statement, not asking a question. I didn't see a question mark ? in your original post? You seemed concerned, so I pointed out a way you could satisfy your curiosity.

Really... this seemed to be a statement...

"Clear something up for me, because I keep reading differing opinions on this, and I can't seem to get a hold of it... the MWP, was there one or not?"

Certainly sounds like a question to me. And, I'm still asking you, why did you put the word "unlikely" in quotes. What were you quoting?

re: #34 Walter L. Newton

Follow up: I can't find any use of the work "unlikely" in either article, the one Charles linked to or the one I did on the BBC website?

I was referencing the video at the head of the post for "unlikely" not Phil, although he seems to indicate doubt that it's likely from reading the extended transcript.

re: #40 charlesincharge

And by the way, that article is from Newsbusters, one of the most dishonest news sources in the business...

re: #29 PT Barnum

Large portions of things that are bad for us...the American Way...

I like big things
The size of them impresses me
Just give me plenty
Forget about the quality

re: #48 Walter L. Newton

Good article... but, this is why I asked and I was hoping for some consensus... I keep getting different stories or variations of the stories from the people who should be somewhere in the same ballpark... (the BBC report on statement by Phil Jones)...

He said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.
But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

No question mark ...

re: #47 albusteve

"tainted" in a political sense has more to do with being associated with controversy, rather than "tainted" in a scientific sense (of decreased quality of data.)

In the minds of the CPACers/Tea Partiers, the IPCC was always "tainted" because it is a UN organization.

The political problem that CRU faces is that they are in Britain, where tabloids are particularly popular and where controversy is sold around the CRU as a means of putting the UK in the center of the scientific headlines, a position of eminence where Americans tend to dominate.

Climatologist have found themselves unprepared for what hit them. If only they had realized what their research means... if only they had organized themselves like the evolution/biology community (which is much larger) to withstand the onslaught.

re: #49 Thanos

I was referencing the video at the head of the post for "unlikely" not Phil, although he seems to indicate doubt that it's likely from reading the extended transcript.

This all turns out to be a good example of the problems with trusting sources in general. The BBC in a full interview, quote Jones making a statement, yet in other article based on that interview, they have Jones saying things that do not quite jive with each other.

In my mind, that's a problem. Evidently not a problem for some people, but a problem for me. The same way my problems (and the University of East Anglia's problem, as evidenced by the investigation that was ordered) as to the way data was treated at the CRU.

re: #54 Walter L. Newton

I agree, I had to click the link under the Jones photo to get to the extended Q&A, they should have made the link more prominent, I prefer scientists own words over those of the reporter.

re: #53 freetoken

"tainted" in a political sense has more to do with being associated with controversy, rather than "tainted" in a scientific sense (of decreased quality of data.)

In the minds of the CPACers/Tea Partiers, the IPCC was always "tainted" because it is a UN organization.

The political problem that CRU faces is that they are in Britain, where tabloids are particularly popular and where controversy is sold around the CRU as a means of putting the UK in the center of the scientific headlines, a position of eminence where Americans tend to dominate.

Climatologist have found themselves unprepared for what hit them. If only they had realized what their research means... if only they had organized themselves like the evolution/biology community (which is much larger) to withstand the onslaught.

Is the Guardian a tabloid? Is the BBC a tabloid? Are any of these sources good sources for AGW science information? It seems to me that the list of cherish sources gets smaller and smaller every time a formerly pro-AGW publication decides to report honestly on what is going on in the science.

re: #56 Walter L. Newton

Is the Guardian a tabloid? Is the BBC a tabloid? Are any of these sources good sources for AGW science information? It seems to me that the list of cherish sources gets smaller and smaller every time a formerly pro-AGW publication decides to report honestly on what is going on in the science.

Honestly?

Hmmm...

re: #53 freetoken

"tainted" in a political sense has more to do with being associated with controversy, rather than "tainted" in a scientific sense (of decreased quality of data.)

In the minds of the CPACers/Tea Partiers, the IPCC was always "tainted" because it is a UN organization.

The political problem that CRU faces is that they are in Britain, where tabloids are particularly popular and where controversy is sold around the CRU as a means of putting the UK in the center of the scientific headlines, a position of eminence where Americans tend to dominate.

Climatologist have found themselves unprepared for what hit them. If only they had realized what their research means... if only they had organized themselves like the evolution/biology community (which is much larger) to withstand the onslaught.

I hadn't gotten to the political taint yet...the claim says the "product" is sufficiently tainted...how so or how much?...is it just an exaggeration?...it's likely nothing but tripe

re: #55 Thanos

I agree, I had to click the link under the Jones photo to get to the extended Q&A, they should have made the link more prominent, I prefer scientists own words over those of the reporter.

My first question above was not meant to be a gotcha. I have seen at least 4 or 5 versions of what Jones has said, on a number of topics, and these versions are coming from normally fair and balanced sources and the denier sources.

It's hard to get to the truth when even the sources you respected move the target. And I am not just imagining this, since it is so easy to simple read both those BBC articles and see the differences.

re: #57 austin_blue

Honestly?

Hmmm...

DId you read the two articles from the BBC and see how they differed?

re: #59 Walter L. Newton

When it comes to science reporting most papers should be considered tabloids. I trust somewhat what I read from actual scientists, what I read at true skeptic sites (CSI, etc.) and at some science blogs. (the ones without obvious and blatant political and philosophical axes to grind that present actual data rather than opinion)

re: #60 Walter L. Newton

DId you read the two articles from the BBC and see how they differed?

Do you not understand the peer reviewed the science? Why is that when you can't attack the science attacking the scientists is OK?

it appears the media is making climate change into anything it wants...I assume the bottom line is profit...anyway the whole AGW movement has taken a huge hit, the question is, where does it go from here?...there must be credibility before there can be solutions

re: #61 Thanos

When it comes to science reporting most papers should be considered tabloids. I trust somewhat what I read from actual scientists, what I read at true skeptic sites (CSI, etc.) and at some science blogs. (the ones without obvious and blatant political and philosophical axes to grind that present actual data rather than opinion)

What is CSI... link... I thried google but to much linking to the stupid TV series, do you have a link?

re: #62 austin_blue

Do you not understand the peer reviewed the science? Why is that when you can't attack the science attacking the scientists is OK?

I'm not attacking anyone, asking questions, stop deflecting.

re: #61 Thanos

When it comes to science reporting most papers should be considered tabloids. I trust somewhat what I read from actual scientists, what I read at true skeptic sites (CSI, etc.) and at some science blogs. (the ones without obvious and blatant political and philosophical axes to grind that present actual data rather than opinion)

but where does that leave the lay person?...can't trust the BBC, can't trust American TV...can't trust anybody

re: #53 freetoken

"tainted" in a political sense has more to do with being associated with controversy, rather than "tainted" in a scientific sense (of decreased quality of data.)

In the minds of the CPACers/Tea Partiers, the IPCC was always "tainted" because it is a UN organization.

The political problem that CRU faces is that they are in Britain, where tabloids are particularly popular and where controversy is sold around the CRU as a means of putting the UK in the center of the scientific headlines, a position of eminence where Americans tend to dominate.

Climatologist have found themselves unprepared for what hit them. If only they had realized what their research means... if only they had organized themselves like the evolution/biology community (which is much larger) to withstand the onslaught.

...and if only their research didn't have such far-reaching societal implications. If they were trying to measure the ionization of the upper troposphere or some such, no one outside their field would be in such a lather. But the groundlings don't understand the science, and don't trust the greenies & international agencies publicizing it.

re: #65 Walter L. Newton

I'm not attacking anyone, asking questions, stop deflecting.

Of *course* you are attacking, Walter. It's the passive/aggressive imp that makes you Walter!

re: #64 Walter L. Newton

[Link: www.csicop.org...]

Skeptical Inquirer

re: #64 Walter L. Newton

What is CSI... link... I thried google but to much linking to the stupid TV series, do you have a link?

Does he mean the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry?

I guess he does!

re: #56 Walter L. Newton

While neither the Guardian nor the BBC are "tabloids" per se, that doesn't keep them from at times dabbling in "tabloid journalism".

Controversy sells. This, I assume, is a universally acknowledged truism about the "news" media. Bad news is news, good news is not news.

As pointed out by potholer54, there are two other global temperature compilations in use (by NASA and NOAA.) Yet how many of the UK articles (by anyone) about "climategate" even point this out? Indeed, how many UK media have even bothered to point out that the American organizations have been much more open about their operations (and data), and that the CRU output actually underplays global warming by their strategic decision to leave out the upper latitudes of the globe?

Your penchant, Walter, for wanting to categorize everything and everybody:

It seems to me that the list of cherish sources gets smaller and smaller every time a formerly pro-AGW publication decides to report honestly on what is going on in the science.

... in a way that makes them seem dishonest, while you are the only honest broker on this topic... is not very enlightening.

re: #69 Thanos

[Link: www.csicop.org...]

Skeptical Inquirer

Got it. Thanks.

re: #56 Walter L. Newton

What do you think is going on in the science, Walter? I'm not quite understanding where you see these 'formerly pro-AGW,' (whatever that means) papers 'honestly' reporting what's going on the science.

What are you referring to?

re: #73 Walter L. Newton

Got it. Thanks.

There's been some serious back and forth at CSI for ten years over this topic, and most of what they present is measured and well reasoned.

re: #72 freetoken

While neither the Guardian nor the BBC are "tabloids" per se, that doesn't keep them from at times dabbling in "tabloid journalism".

Controversy sells. This, I assume, is a universally acknowledged truism about the "news" media. Bad news is news, good news is not news.

As pointed out by potholer54, there are two other global temperature compilations in use (by NASA and NOAA.) Yet how many of the UK articles (by anyone) about "climategate" even point this out? Indeed, how many UK media have even bothered to point out that the American organizations have been much more open about their operations (and data), and that the CRU output actually underplays global warming by their strategic decision to leave out the upper latitudes of the globe?

Your penchant, Walter, for wanting to categorize everything and everybody:

... in a way that makes them seem dishonest, while you are the only honest broker on this topic... is not very enlightening.

Hey Freetoken, one week I'm told that the Guardian is a good source, and then a few weeks ago, Fred Pearce does 5 articles about some of the procedural problems at the CRU and the IPCC and suddenly they are on some people shit list.

Just trying to keep up.

re: #50 Walter L. Newton

And by the way, that article is from Newsbusters, one of the most dishonest news sources in the business...

W.R.Mead is not an employee of "Newsbusters". Nor do I believe he wrote the article for them. Be careful Walter. Just because "The New York Times" picks up an article doesn't mean it is full of spin and half truths.

In the end I have to support what Johnson said: If the AGW deniers and skeptics are serious, they can dig into the data and do some real science. That way they'd be contributing instead of quibbling.

re: #72 freetoken

While neither the Guardian nor the BBC are "tabloids" per se, that doesn't keep them from at times dabbling in "tabloid journalism".

Controversy sells. This, I assume, is a universally acknowledged truism about the "news" media. Bad news is news, good news is not news.

As pointed out by potholer54, there are two other global temperature compilations in use (by NASA and NOAA.) Yet how many of the UK articles (by anyone) about "climategate" even point this out? Indeed, how many UK media have even bothered to point out that the American organizations have been much more open about their operations (and data), and that the CRU output actually underplays global warming by their strategic decision to leave out the upper latitudes of the globe?

Your penchant, Walter, for wanting to categorize everything and everybody:

... in a way that makes them seem dishonest, while you are the only honest broker on this topic... is not very enlightening.

the problem is, the typical person sees a polar bear, forlorn and stranded on a tiny piece of iceberg, starving or drowning...then the next thing they hear is that polar bears are flourishing...the debate is not on the internet over famed scientists and unreal numbers and science...it's out on the street, in the homes of average people wondering who is telling the truth...so you can't believe the BBC, well fine, but that's a huge thing

re: #76 Walter L. Newton

You mean this Fred Pearce?

How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies

He says some pretty damning things about people making the claim that the CRU data were manipulated.

re: #77 charlesincharge

W.R.Mead is not an employee of "Newsbusters". Nor do I believe he wrote the article for them. Be careful Walter. Just because "The New York Times" picks up an article doesn't mean it is full of spin and half truths.

That is true, but honesty compels me to say that in Newsbusters and the New York Times disagree about a story, you are far more likely to find that the New York Times is right.

re: #78 Thanos

In the end I have to support what Johnson said: If the AGW deniers and skeptics are serious, they can dig into the data and do some real science. That way they'd be contributing instead of quibbling.

Well, when the CRU is not denying FOI requests.

re: #81 Dark_Falcon

That is true, but honesty compels me to say that in Newsbusters and the New York Times disagree about a story, you are far more likely to find that the New York Times is right.

I agree. But that ain't saying much for the "NYT".

re: #82 Walter L. Newton

The data is out there Walter, people can make their own model and completely discredit them if the data indicates something other than what the IPCC is saying. They aren't interested.

re: #78 Thanos

In the end I have to support what Johnson said: If the AGW deniers and skeptics are serious, they can dig into the data and do some real science. That way they'd be contributing instead of quibbling.

Thank you. Go after the science instead of the scientists.

But they can't, so we get petty bullshit. A lot of money is riding on the world's reaction to the threat of AGW, and the money boy's have got plenty to spend.

For all of the whining about CRU... all of the smears and all of the bullshit.

NO ONE has ever proven that the data sets they used are false.

NO ONE has ever proven that their conclusions were invalid.

NO ONE of the deniers mentions the other major data sets - that corroborate CRU.

NO ONE of the deniers actually talks about the science or the data itself.

NO ONE of the deniers notices that the data they whine about is on the web, and that the methodology used is previously published.

NO ONE admits that this is nothing more than a smear job done by the evil to mislead the gullible and the stupid.

NO ONE admits that there is no freedom of information act in America for someones' research that means that just anyone can go pell mell through a scientists work, and then they confuse the British rules of it with American rules. While we are at it, the published data is well ALREADY PUBLISHED AND ON THE WEB.

NO ONE admits that the dozens of CRU requests all came from climate deniers fanatics in an attempt to hamper the work of honest scientists with endless paperwork - for things that were already on the web!

Doubt that all the data was on the web? Really?

Download it here.

[Link: hadobs.metoffice.com...]

You can also see the methodology.

But don't let honest facts like these get in the way of a good smear.

re: #85 austin_blue

Yep. And as Charles has pointed out, a lot of the front groups, lobbyists, and other organizations fighting against the science so hard are the same ones who fought against the truth in tobacco, CFCs, acid rain, etc.

Professional nihilists.

re: #87 Obdicut

Yep. And as Charles has pointed out, a lot of the front groups, lobbyists, and other organizations fighting against the science so hard are the same ones who fought against the truth in tobacco, CFCs, acid rain, etc.

Professional nihilists.

And they are the same assholes who push ID as well.

re: #86 ludwigvanquixote

Or facts like these...

The inquiry will also investigate the scientists' response to freedom-of-information laws, as well as governance and security issues on data.

Sir Muir said the results of his inquiry would be published but warned that it would not ''audit the [unit's] scientific conclusions", only the scientists' behaviour and how they followed data procedures.

Obscene name calling in 5,4,3,2,1... ?

re: #80 Obdicut

You mean this Fred Pearce?

How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies

He says some pretty damning things about people making the claim that the CRU data were manipulated.

so what?...what is the CRU doing to change the perception in peoples minds?...they are wandering around stunned while the AGW notion falls further and further off the radar...you can argue all you want about who's right or wrong, but that just feeds the fire...socially AGW is nearly dead, so what's next?...more, endless quibbling?...that just turns people off even more...better get your snorkle polished up, you're gonna need it

re: #82 Walter L. Newton

Well, when the CRU is not denying FOI requests.

How many times do you have to read how they were bombarded by FOI requests (kind of like a Denial of Service attack)? They quite simply didn't have the staff to keep up!

Really, Walter.

re: #89 Walter L. Newton

Or facts like these...

The inquiry will also investigate the scientists' response to freedom-of-information laws, as well as governance and security issues on data.

Sir Muir said the results of his inquiry would be published but warned that it would not ''audit the [unit's] scientific conclusions", only the scientists' behaviour and how they followed data procedures.

Obscene name calling in 5,4,3,2,1... ?

Again, attacking the scientists, not the science. What is it with you?

re: #80 Obdicut

You mean this Fred Pearce?

How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies

He says some pretty damning things about people making the claim that the CRU data were manipulated.

Yes, the same Fred Pearce...

Climate scientists contradicted spirit of openness by turning down FoI requests - Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block requests from sceptics — and deep frustration at anti-global warming agenda

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws - Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures

Environment Climate change - Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege - In the first part of a major investigation of the so-called 'climategate' emails, one of Britain's top science writers reveals how researchers tried to hide flaws in a key study

re: #91 austin_blue

How many times do you have to read how they were bombarded by FOI requests (kind of like a Denial of Service attack)? They quite simply didn't have the staff to keep up!

Really, Walter.

They didn't respond to the first one, when there was only one. They never responded to any of them.

re: #89 Walter L. Newton

Facts like inquiries. Yeah. Those are some facts, Walter. What about the reports exonerating Mann on three out of four charges of misconduct already? Are those facts?

re: #87 Obdicut

Yep. And as Charles has pointed out, a lot of the front groups, lobbyists, and other organizations fighting against the science so hard are the same ones who fought against the truth in tobacco, CFCs, acid rain, etc.

Professional nihilists.

they are winning...does science have a plan B, other than useless ridicule?

re: #94 Pythagoras

They didn't respond to the first one, when there was only one. They never responded to any of them.

Correct. They didn't respond to any of them, and the British government had to take them to court.

re: #96 albusteve

they are winning...does science have a plan B, other than useless ridicule?

Science needs no Plan B. Facts are facts.

re: #95 Obdicut

Facts like inquiries. Yeah. Those are some facts, Walter. What about the reports exonerating Mann on three out of four charges of misconduct already? Are those facts?

We are talking about FreD Pearce and his articles. Stop deflecting.

re: #95 Obdicut

Facts like inquiries. Yeah. Those are some facts, Walter. What about the reports exonerating Mann on three out of four charges of misconduct already? Are those facts?

Good heavens. Read the report. They didn't interview many people.

re: #89 Walter L. Newton

Or facts like these...

The inquiry will also investigate the scientists' response to freedom-of-information laws, as well as governance and security issues on data.

Sir Muir said the results of his inquiry would be published but warned that it would not ''audit the [unit's] scientific conclusions", only the scientists' behaviour and how they followed data procedures.

Obscene name calling in 5,4,3,2,1... ?

Interesting how you know that you deserve to be called obscene names for continuing to bring this horse manure Walter.

The limp dicked whining that maybe scientists who are understaffed to deal with the targeted flood of specious requests WHILE NEVER ACTUALLY CHALLENGING THE SCIENCE WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is exactly like the evolution deniers whining to "teach the controversy" after having their asses handed to them on the science of evolution in court.

It is just as pathetic, craven and diversionary.

What is agitating is that I keep hoping that you would be bright enough to see through such garbage, yet you insist on bringing it again and again in a vain and futile attempt to sound clever.

I am being forced to conclude, that no, you really are just not that bright.

re: #93 Walter L. Newton

Okay. So given that you think he's reporting honestly, you agree that the whole Climategate scandal is a bogus scandal cooked up by the deniers?

Or do you just pick and choose what you like about Pearce's articles, and what you like about them happens to coincide with the articles that attack scientists?

re: #97 Walter L. Newton

Correct. They didn't respond to any of them, and the British government had to take them to court.

Bullshit. They responded to plenty of them. They just didn't respond to *all* of them within the required time frame, because they didn't have the staff.

re: #98 austin_blue

Science needs no Plan B. Facts are facts.

yeah?...well facts are not reducing CO2 levels, or slowing down melting glaciers are they?...what the fuck good are facts when nobody believes them?...you have any clue how many people watch the unreliable BBC?

re: #94 Pythagoras

They didn't respond to the first one, when there was only one. They never responded to any of them.

That is because what they asked for WAS ALREADY ON THE WEB!

But idiots like you never do the most basic of homework.

A 10 second google search on Hadcrut3 will bring you to the page where YOU CAN DOWN LOAD ALL THE DATA!

YOU ASSHOLES CAN NOT EVEN BE BOTHERED TO DO THAT.

re: #100 Pythagoras

Good heavens. How many should they have interviewed?

Are you saying there was a coverup, and the exoneration of Mann is part of that conspiracy?

re: #101 ludwigvanquixote

[snip]

The limp dicked whining that maybe scientists who are understaffed to deal with the targeted flood of specious requests WHILE NEVER ACTUALLY CHALLENGING THE SCIENCE WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is exactly like the evolution deniers whining to "teach the controversy" after having their asses handed to them on the science of evolution in court.

[snip]

Limp dicked scientist like Kevin Trenberth...

"A lot of stuff in there was just not very good," said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the first report. "A chronic problem is that on the whole area of impacts, getting into the realm of social science, it is a softer science. The facts are not as good."

re: #101 ludwigvanquixote

Walter is actually very smart in his fields. You no more about science, Ludwig, but if you were to try to write a play or act on stage or screen, you would find your skills lacking compared to Walter. He may be wrong or stubborn, but he is not stupid.

re: #97 Walter L. Newton

Correct. They didn't respond to any of them, and the British government had to take them to court.

The British aren't using the kind of "self-checking" that Penn State is. We may have to wait a long time for this to be finalized but when it is it will carry much weight.

I doubt most of the posters here will be happy.

re: #101 ludwigvanquixote

nice, just really cool

re: #86 ludwigvanquixote

re: #89 Walter L. Newton

re: #101 ludwigvanquixote

Goodness gracious, look at the time, must run...

re: #104 albusteve

yeah?...well facts are not reducing CO2 levels, or slowing down melting glaciers are they?...what the fuck good are facts when nobody believes them?...you have any clue how many people watch the unreliable BBC?

Nobody believes them because *you* don't?

Heh. Nice ego, there, Steve.

re: #108 Dark_Falcon

Walter is actually very smart in his fields. You know more about science, Ludwig, but if you were to try to write a play or act on stage or screen, you would find your skills lacking compared to Walter. He may be wrong or stubborn, but he is not stupid.

PIMF

re: #52 Thanos

It is instructive to remember, when thinking about the MWP & the temperature of the planet as a whole, that an ice buildup takes energy, because the water in an ice buildup has to be evaporated (takes energy) and transported on the winds (takes energy).

And one could theorize that in the MWP, the planet as a whole was cooler, and that during the buildup of an ice age, the planet as a whole has to be somewhat warmer.

re: #101 ludwigvanquixote

Interesting how you know that you deserve to be called obscene names for continuing to bring this horse manure Walter.
(snip)
It is just as pathetic, craven and diversionary.

What is agitating is that I keep hoping that you would be bright enough to see through such garbage, yet you insist on bringing it again and again in a vain and futile attempt to sound clever.

I am being forced to conclude, that no, you really are just not that bright.

Didn't everyone get the memo on this? Walter is a concern troll over AGW. This is episode eleventy-billion in the long running series "Please Pay Attention To Walter."

re: #105 ludwigvanquixote

That is because what they asked for WAS ALREADY ON THE WEB!

But idiots like you never do the most basic of homework.

A 10 second google search on Hadcrut3 will bring you to the page where YOU CAN DOWN LOAD ALL THE DATA!

YOU ASSHOLES CAN NOT EVEN BE BOTHERED TO DO THAT.

Easy, my man. The angels are on your side.

re: #102 Obdicut

Okay. So given that you think he's reporting honestly, you agree that the whole Climategate scandal is a bogus scandal cooked up by the deniers?

Or do you just pick and choose what you like about Pearce's articles, and what you like about them happens to coincide with the articles that attack scientists?

Pearce is attacking scientist... really? I didn't think he was attacking scientist. I thought he was questioning some of the process, procedure and policies of some of these organizations, but I never thought he was attacking the scientist or AGW... hell, he's one of the UK's top AGW science reporters.

re: #108 Dark_Falcon

Walter is actually very smart in his fields. You no more about science, Ludwig, but if you were to try to write a play or act on stage or screen, you would find your skills lacking compared to Walter. He may be wrong or stubborn, but he is not stupid.

you need to explain this?...bwahahaha!

re: #115 iceweasel

Didn't everyone get the memo on this? Walter is a concern troll over AGW. This is episode eleventy-billion in the long running series "Please Pay Attention To Walter."

Your deflection tactic gets old...

re: #108 Dark_Falcon

Walter is actually very smart in his fields. You no more about science, Ludwig, but if you were to try to write a play or act on stage or screen, you would find your skills lacking compared to Walter. He may be wrong or stubborn, but he is not stupid.

Stubbornly repeating the same lies over and over until at least 50 hand him his ass in 100 different ways is stupid.

Engaging in a science discussion without knowing bringing any actual science is stupid.

Believing that the Nazis were really leftists is stupid.

No. He is butt dumb.

re: #105 ludwigvanquixote

Be cool, baby. You know this is all partly intended to provoke you, right?
A little later the usual suspects will clutch their pearls and bewail how the threads 'lack civility' when 'certain' people are around.

re: #106 Obdicut

Good heavens. How many should they have interviewed?

Are you saying there was a coverup, and the exoneration of Mann is part of that conspiracy?

"Cover-up" is way too strong. It wasn't, "thorough."

I was having such a good time. We were all kicking around Ron Paul together.

re: #117 Walter L. Newton

Okay. So do you agree with his article about how the Climategate scandal is bogus, based on deniers lies, and that the CRU data was not manipulated?

re: #112 austin_blue

Nobody believes them because *you* don't?

Heh. Nice ego, there, Steve.

I do believe them, and have never doubted the science...you miss the point, caught up in the combative nature of this thing...too bad this blog has fallen to that point...nice ego there Austin

re: #121 iceweasel

Be cool, baby. You know this is all partly intended to provoke you, right?
A little later the usual suspects will clutch their pearls and bewail how the threads 'lack civility' when 'certain' people are around.

Right... we all email Ludwig to come over here and get upset. LOL.

re: #122 Pythagoras

And you are able to make a judgement on this because... why, exactly?

re: #119 Walter L. Newton

Your deflection tactic gets old...

Yeah, yeah. Pointing out what you're doing is 'deflecting', you're just 'asking questions', blah blah.
Same rerun, different thread.

re: #119 Walter L. Newton

Your deflection tactic gets old...

Walter, bringing whining about whether you like the way a scientist responded to a loser crank denier as a method to question the actual science is diversionary.

Whining about fortran code in the analysis of Hadcrut3, without actually having any evidence the code produced faulty results is diversionary - AND DISHONEST.

Not quitting this shit when you know I will hand you your bottom for continuing to spread lies and misinformation as part of a diversion form the science.

Denying that all you do is diversionary tactics from the science and then whining about diversions is well chutzpah.

re: #122 Pythagoras

How about we all relax and beat up on Pythagoras. He's the one who's really obtuse.

re: #130 Dark_Falcon

I definitely have an acute desire to do so.

re: #125 albusteve

I do believe them, and have never doubted the science...you miss the point, caught up in the combative nature of this thing...too bad this blog has fallen to that point...nice ego there Austin

Sorry, Steve, I was fooled by your statement:

yeah?...well facts are not reducing CO2 levels, or slowing down melting glaciers are they?...what the fuck good are facts when nobody believes them?...you have any clue how many people watch the unreliable BBC?

re: #124 Obdicut

Okay. So do you agree with his article about how the Climategate scandal is bogus, based on deniers lies, and that the CRU data was not manipulated?

Possibly... we'll see after the University conducts their investigation.

Sir Muir said the results of his inquiry would be published but warned that it would not ''audit the [unit's] scientific conclusions", only the scientists' behaviour and how they followed data procedures.

re: #108 Dark_Falcon

Walter is actually very smart in his fields. You no more about science, Ludwig, but if you were to try to write a play or act on stage or screen, you would find your skills lacking compared to Walter. He may be wrong or stubborn, but he is not stupid.

Is Ludwig foisting crap plays on us and demanding that we like them, DF? That's the key point here.

re: #128 iceweasel

Yeah, yeah. Pointing out what you're doing is 'deflecting', you're just 'asking questions', blah blah.
Same rerun, different thread.

what a load of crap...stick to the issue

re: #130 Dark_Falcon

How about we all relax and beat up on Pythagoras. He's the one who's really obtuse.

Him and his goddamn Theorem.

re: #133 Walter L. Newton

So in citing Fred Pearce, weren't you citing him as an example of someone who is reporting 'honestly' on the science?

re: #127 Obdicut

And you are able to make a judgement on this because... why, exactly?

[Link: climateaudit.org...]

re: #85 austin_blue

Thank you. Go after the science instead of the scientists.

But they can't, so we get petty bullshit. A lot of money is riding on the world's reaction to the threat of AGW, and the money boy's have got plenty to spend.

I just read this week that two major oil companies and Caterpiller , you know that company that makes Carbon spewing farm machines. And also helps feed the world. Just dropped out of a group that lobbied to help "Cap and Trade" and other BS bills through Congress.

I thought "Big Oil" and "Big Business" were supporting the "deniers". GE,BP and scores of others were to "be granted" major CO2 credits.Which they could sell for $billions$ on the fake and contrived CO2 credits market. "Big Business" bought and paid for,by the "AGW" lobbies.

re: #129 ludwigvanquixote

Perhaps he focus on the behavior of the people because that is something he's better at analyzing. Most smart, well-informed, people (which describes Walter) are much better at analyzing human behavior than scientific data. The science is hard to understand at times, but the way people act is easier.

/amateur psychoanalysis, feel free to down ding this post and rebut it

re: #138 Pythagoras

Steve McIntyre? Seriously? An arch-denier is your source?

Steve McIntyre has zero credibility. Negative credibility.

re: #136 SanFranciscoZionist

Him and his goddamn Theorem.

20,21,29

Carbon Credits = Big money = Corruption.

*spew*

re: #132 austin_blue

Sorry, Steve, I was fooled by your statement:

yeah?...well facts are not reducing CO2 levels, or slowing down melting glaciers are they?...what the fuck good are facts when nobody believes them?...you have any clue how many people watch the unreliable BBC?

no problem...I'm pissed that this thing cannot get out of it's own way, and outsiders, the media that is, and paid 'others' have tainted the whole issue to the point that the average guy has no clue as to whats going on...I do not dispute LVQs science or Charles hard work...now it's in the tank and I wonder whre it goes from here...I am a builder, a contractor...I deal in progress and solutions to problems...I am very skeptical hence my sometimes snark...I get frustrated listening to people split hairs over numbers or language or who said what

re: #138 Pythagoras

Climate Audit is a denier site. Here's the Wiki page of its operator:

Stephen McIntyre

re: #141 Obdicut

Steve McIntyre? Seriously? An arch-denier is your source?

Steve McIntyre has zero credibility. Negative credibility.

THIS, folks is denial. He says he wasn't contacted. The report doesn't mention that he was contacted.

Any hint there that he actually wasn't contacted? How good is an investigation that didn't do that?

re: #143 Ojoe

Carbon Credits = Big money = Corruption.

*spew*

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write.

This has become common knowledge and Dr Rajendra Pachauri has not denied these charges.

re: #143 Ojoe

Carbon Credits = Big money = Corruption.

*spew*

That's not spewing. Given the corruption of the UN, its almost certain if carbon credits are overseen by the UN.

re: #143 Ojoe

Carbon Credits = Big money = Corruption.

*spew*

no shit...this will never get sorted out...way too much money involved

re: #140 Dark_Falcon

Perhaps he focus on the behavior of the people because that is something he's better at analyzing. Most smart, well-informed, people (which describes Walter) are much better at analyzing human behavior than scientific data. The science is hard to understand at times, but the way people act is easier.

/amateur psychoanalysis, feel free to down ding this post and rebut it

DF, we do not always agree, but you are a friend.

I don't blow my stack at an honest disagreement.

I blow my stack at dishonest bullshit.

Walter specializes in bringing that.

Remember when he would whine endlessly that the code was messed up and I kept asking him to talk about the science and show that somehow the results were skewed?

Remember when I showed him paper after paper that analyzed the results and the other datasets and analysis that corroborated them?
He did not stop then.

I suspect that the reason he still isn't going on like a broken record about that now is that enough other people finally challenged him to put up or shut up.

And of course he could not.

And of course he did not.
If he were half as bright as you give him credit for, he would know that you bring science to a science discussion. Yet he had the arrogance to wade into such a discussion against actual scientists who are armed with data when he himself had nothing more than a bluff and a lot of whining.

That is stupid.

It really is.

re: #139 charlesincharge

I just read this week that two major oil companies and Caterpiller , you know that company that makes Carbon spewing farm machines. And also helps feed the world. Just dropped out of a group that lobbied to help "Cap and Trade" and other BS bills through Congress.

I thought "Big Oil" and "Big Business" were supporting the "deniers". GE,BP and scores of others were to "be granted" major CO2 credits.Which they could sell for $billions$ on the fake and contrived CO2 credits market. "Big Business" bought and paid for,by the "AGW" lobbies.

Again with the not attacking the science.

Yawn.

re: #148 Dark_Falcon

That's not spewing. Given the corruption of the UN, its almost certain if carbon credits are overseen by the UN.

You are going to open yourself up to getting dumped on.

re: #148 Dark_Falcon

That's not spewing. Given the corruption of the UN, its almost certain if carbon credits are overseen by the UN.

The UN can't even keep Hiz'ballah from rearming and terrorizing Lebanon yet it's tasked to keep track carbon credits?

re: #150 ludwigvanquixote

you attack, usually first and with the most aggression

re: #129 ludwigvanquixote

Questions...

Do you believe purchasing carbon credits will save the planet or is it a scam?

How many carbon credits have you purchased?

re: #139 charlesincharge

LArge corporations sometimes donate to groups on both sides of an issue, as a way to make sure they have a hand in shaping legislation. So your attempt at a smear is a FAIL. But you did build a nice straw man.

re: #145 Dark_Falcon

Climate Audit is a denier site. Here's the Wiki page of its operator:

Stephen McIntyre

Wikipedia pages about people are unreliable. However, these pages are some of the best references on earth for these topics:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The first one is actually better than what's in Knuth -- which is the programmers Bible. Amazing.

Hey, I'm going to bed. I can't handle this much fun all at once. Feel free to bust on me all night. I'll let you know if it kept me up.

the UN needs to be cut out of the picture...they simply cannot be trusted

re: #152 Walter L. Newton

You are going to open yourself up to getting dumped on.

No he's not. He's right. Cap and trade is fraught. A carbon tax isn't.

re: #151 austin_blue

Again with the not attacking the science.

Yawn.

Well, let's see. When Pat Robertson makes stupid statements and he becomes a center of a discussion here, are we denying all of Christianity, or just attacking someone with in the Christian movement who is a blundering idiot?

Well, let's see. When Glenn Back makes stupid statements and he becomes a center of a discussion here, are we denying all of conservatism, or just attacking someone with in the conservative movement who is a blundering idiot?

See the trend.

re: #154 albusteve

you attack, usually first and with the most aggression

Yes, but he *does* have the facts on his side. Important.

re: #155 NJDhockeyfan

NJD, he has seldom mentioned carbon credits. Most of his writing here has been concerned with establishing the truth about AGW. He's criticized cap-and-trade, at least in its current form.

re: #160 Walter L. Newton

Well, let's see. When Pat Robertson makes stupid statements and he becomes a center of a discussion here, are we denying all of Christianity, or just attacking someone with in the Christian movement who is a blundering idiot?

Well, let's see. When Glenn Back makes stupid statements and he becomes a center of a discussion here, are we denying all of conservatism, or just attacking someone with in the conservative movement who is a blundering idiot?

See the trend.

So Robertson and Beck are equivalent to scientists?

Oh, dear.

re: #65 Walter L. Newton

I'm not attacking anyone, asking questions, stop deflecting.

"Hey did anyone see that video about 9/11? Could our government really have done this? Or are they perfect and beyond all reproach?Don't attack me- I'm just askin' questions!"

"Anyone read that book by Michael Behe about how evolution is a fraud? Is it true - have we been taught a pack of lies all our lives? Or should we believe instead that the 'scientists' are infallible?"

"Anyone hear about how scientists keep fucking up the climate data? Is it true, or should we just believe everything we are told like a bunch of sheep...?"

(reposted from an earlier thread in response to similar bullshit from the same source)

re: #162 Dark_Falcon

NJD, he has seldom mentioned carbon credits. Most of his writing here has been concerned with establishing the truth about AGW. He's criticized cap-and-trade, at least in its current form.

Carbon credits are being pushed by a large part of the AGW crowd. Since LVQ considers himself a climate expert and is forecasting a climate armageddon I wanted his opinion on that.

re: #155 NJDhockeyfan

Questions...

Do you believe purchasing carbon credits will save the planet or is it a scam?

How many carbon credits have you purchased?

NJD, you specialize in asking me things again and again that I have written about - on threads you were on.

In short, cap and trade in its current castrated and stillborn form will not do enough to solve the issue. It will simply mean paying more to pollute elsewhere.

There is no magic economic slight of hand to fix this.

We need to switch to nuclear solar and wind.

We need smart energy grids and electric vehicles.

The only way to produce the energy we need while actually reducing CO2 emissions enough in time to make a difference is to actually use other sources of energy.

re: #163 austin_blue

So Robertson and Beck are equivalent to scientists?

Oh, dear.

And you are being so obtuse... you understand the metaphor... don't deflect. They are both very visible "leaders" in their respective "movements..." yet they certainly do not represent the sane elements of the folks they claim to represent.

There is nothing wrong with "attacking" a scientist if he/she has done something to break the publics trust... the public is many time is responsible for that scientists salary.

re: #161 austin_blue

Yes, but he *does* have the facts on his side. Important.

we need to move beyond the facts...facts need to be sold as truth...forget the international community and let's try to deal with this problem alone, here in America...people say we are best when we lead by example so let's lead, for ourselves, others may follow...if not, so be it...find our own energy in the short term, oil, gas and even coal...get our economy up to speed so there is profit in green tech, toss in a bit of fed money...streamline the nuke process and get some water to CA for gods sake...move...forward

re: #164 Jimmah

"Hey did anyone see that video about 9/11? Could our government really have done this? Or are they perfect and beyond all reproach?Don't attack me- I'm just askin' questions!"

"Anyone read that book by Michael Behe about how evolution is a fraud? Is it true - have we been taught a pack of lies all our lives? Or should we believe instead that the 'scientists' are infallible?"

"Anyone hear about how scientists keep fucking up the climate data? Is it true, or should we just believe everything we are told like a bunch of sheep...?"

(reposted from an earlier thread in response to similar bullshit from the same source)

You're not claiming I made those statement, are you?

re: #166 ludwigvanquixote

It is sort of like losing weight.

There is one way to do it.

Eat less and exercise more.

Want less CO2, burn less fossil fuel. Really simple. There is no Atkins diet for AGW.

re: #166 ludwigvanquixote

NJD, you specialize in asking me things again and again that I have written about - on threads you were on.

In short, cap and trade in its current castrated and stillborn form will not do enough to solve the issue. It will simply mean paying more to pollute elsewhere.

There is no magic economic slight of hand to fix this.

We need to switch to nuclear solar and wind.

We need smart energy grids and electric vehicles.

The only way to produce the energy we need while actually reducing CO2 emissions enough in time to make a difference is to actually use other sources of energy.

Thanks for that answer. Will you admit the carbon credit industry is a scam?

re: #164 Jimmah

"Hey did anyone see that video about 9/11? Could our government really have done this? Or are they perfect and beyond all reproach?Don't attack me- I'm just askin' questions!"

"Anyone read that book by Michael Behe about how evolution is a fraud? Is it true - have we been taught a pack of lies all our lives? Or should we believe instead that the 'scientists' are infallible?"

"Anyone hear about how scientists keep fucking up the climate data? Is it true, or should we just believe everything we are told like a bunch of sheep...?"

(reposted from an earlier thread in response to similar bullshit from the same source)

That's actually a fairly good Glen Beck impression, Jimmah. Now we just need to find you a blackboard...

re: #171 NJDhockeyfan

Thanks for that answer. Will you admit the carbon credit industry is a scam?

I have never claimed it was anything other than useless as it is currently proposed.

OT: Math is hard.
_{That egg-head stuff if for elitists anyway...}

re: #164 Jimmah

"Hey did anyone see that video about 9/11? Could our government really have done this? Or are they perfect and beyond all reproach?Don't attack me- I'm just askin' questions!"

"Anyone read that book by Michael Behe about how evolution is a fraud? Is it true - have we been taught a pack of lies all our lives? Or should we believe instead that the 'scientists' are infallible?"

"Anyone hear about how scientists keep fucking up the climate data? Is it true, or should we just believe everything we are told like a bunch of sheep...?"

(reposted from an earlier thread in response to similar bullshit from the same source)

Yep. "I'm just asking questions. I'm not a denier, I just argue exactly like one!"
Tired. Weak, weak sauce.

re: #170 ludwigvanquixote

It is sort of like losing weight.

There is one way to do it.

Eat less and exercise more.

Want less CO2, burn less fossil fuel. Really simple. There is no Atkins diet for AGW.

we know that...can you add something new?...are you buying carbon credits?...describe your footprint as an example we might consider or follow...how do you live?, what are you doing to lessen the CO2 in the air

Good evening Lizards!

How the fuck is everyone?

re: #173 ludwigvanquixote

I have never claimed it was anything other than useless as it is currently proposed.

It's not totally useless. It's made quite a few people very wealthy. Ask Al Gore.

re: #170 ludwigvanquixote

It is sort of like losing weight.

There is one way to do it.

Eat less and exercise more.

Want less CO2, burn less fossil fuel. Really simple. There is no Atkins diet for AGW.

A couple days ago, there was short discussion on the merits of cardboard cups for coffee versus stainless steel cups. I wanted to ask your opinion, which is the better idea: using a number of cardboard cups, or buying a single steel one (bearing in mind the carbon use inherent in steel production).

re: #177 Racer X

Good evening Lizards!

How the fuck is everyone?

Fucking awesome! How the fuck are you?

re: #177 Racer X

Good evening Lizards!

How the fuck is everyone?

Fucking retarded.

re: #180 NJDhockeyfan

Fucking awesome! How the fuck are you?

I'm more fucking awesome than you are

re: #180 NJDhockeyfan

Fucking awesome! How the fuck are you?

I am fan-fucking-tastic!

re: #170 ludwigvanquixote

Want less CO2, burn less fossil fuel. Really simple. There is no Atkins diet for AGW.

The thing that gets me is that, even if AGW weren't a factor, there are plenty of other reasons to phase out fossil fuels - remember the Beijing Olympics and how they dealt with the city's choking, smothering smog? Shutting down factories, taking cars off the road...you could literally see the difference afterward. That alone should have served as a big-ass clue about the need for alternate sources of energy. Now, if only we could find a way to make such alternative sources more profitable than the forces who fuel the denial industry :(

re: #178 NJDhockeyfan

It's not totally useless. It's made quite a few people very wealthy. Ask Al Gore.

Gaia is goddess and Al Gore is her prophet.

re: #178 NJDhockeyfan

It's not totally useless. It's made quite a few people very wealthy. Ask Al Gore.

I don't think Al Gore is a big fan of UN corruption. I'd guess he'd like the same thing as all of us: To clear out the UN corruption that hobbles legitimate research and action.

re: #169 Walter L. Newton

I'm saying that your "I'm just asking questions " schtick falls into an easily recognisable pattern of concern trolling.

The video is not especially accurate. The narrator seems to suggest that "80% confidence" is a reasonable benchmark and likely to indicate a real difference. This is not reflective of the common practice in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. 80% confidence (P=0.2) would be interpreted as "no difference" in many if not most cases.

Moreover, I plugged the video's dice example into my statistics program and calculated a P-value of 0.002, or 99.8% confidence. A more reasonable example would have had only about half sixes showing (P=0.1, or 90% confidence). But that would have been a less convincing example!

I know these complaints are rather technical, but if you are going to complain that the Daily Mail is not providing a nuanced analysis of the statistics discussed by Jones, then you had better be nuanced yourself!

re: #183 Racer X

I am fan-fucking-tastic!

Then be yourself... Mister alienated loner steppenwolf bemused distant meta-izing technocrat rationalist fucking shit head.

re: #186 Dark_Falcon

I don't think Al Gore is a big fan of UN corruption. I'd guess he'd like the same thing as all of us: To clear out the UN corruption that hobbles legitimate research and action.

Actions speak louder than words.

re: #33 Charles

Instead of relying on what the BBC journalist wrote about the interview -- what you're citing is NOT a direct quote from Jones -- why not go straight to the source:

It is refreshing to read an honest report of an honest admission in response to an honest question, without all the usual spin.

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

Then be yourself... Mister alienated loner steppenwolf bemused distant meta-izing technocrat rationalist fucking shit head.

Dad? Is that you?

re: #187 Jimmah

I'm saying that your "I'm just asking questions " schtick falls into an easily recognisable pattern of concern trolling.

Oh... I understand, well, your certainly entitled to your opinion.

re: #186 Dark_Falcon

I don't think Al Gore is a big fan of UN corruption. I'd guess he'd like the same thing as all of us: To clear out the UN corruption that hobbles legitimate research and action.

Not if it affects his bottom line.

re: #192 Racer X

Dad? Is that you?

Anyone know the book that quote is from...

"Then be yourself... Mister alienated loner steppenwolf bemused distant meta-izing technocrat rationalist fucking shit head."

re: #177 Racer X

Good evening Lizards!

How the fuck is everyone?

Just gawt-damned peachy. How the fuck are you?

re: #179 Dark_Falcon

A couple days ago, there was short discussion on the merits of cardboard cups for coffee versus stainless steel cups. I wanted to ask your opinion, which is the better idea: using a number of cardboard cups, or buying a single steel one (bearing in mind the carbon use inherent in steel production).

Honestly, I don't know the answer to that.

I do know it would be relatively easy to calculate with the right information.

I would figure it like this.

How many uses will the steel cup realistically get on average compared to when the average person buys paper anyway.

How much carbon comes from producing both?

The reality is that both of these things are secondary to what would happen if you had solar panels on your home and an electric car.

The cost of a federal program to make everyone have a steel cup would likely be more than the longterm cost of a program to give tax credits for helping homeowners install solar panels and building a smart grid that allowed the redistribution of that energy in off peak hours and during peak hours for that matter (which would ultimately turn a profit).

re: #195 Walter L. Newton

Anyone know the book that quote is from...

"Then be yourself... Mister alienated loner steppenwolf bemused distant meta-izing technocrat rationalist fucking shit head."

If I didn't know better, I'd swear it was from The Big Lebowski, but that's a movie.

re: #195 Walter L. Newton

Anyone know the book that quote is from...

"Then be yourself... Mister alienated loner steppenwolf bemused distant meta-izing technocrat rationalist fucking shit head."

I googled.

re: #170 ludwigvanquixote

Do you think that if the inevitable and grim scenario of climate change occurs, that it is simply nature's way of balancing the planet back to normalcy? As science and medicine advances and allows lifespans to continually extend, one must ask just when the planet becomes over populated and nature forces a reduction through disease or climate.

re: #196 Slumbering Behemoth

Just gawt-damned peachy. How the fuck are you?

Peachy? Peachy?

What does it take to become "peachy" anyways?

Fuzzy skin?

re: #197 ludwigvanquixote

Honestly, I don't know the answer to that.

I do know it would be relatively easy to calculate with the right information.

I would figure it like this.

How many uses will the steel cup realistically get on average compared to when the average person buys paper anyway.

How much carbon comes from producing both?

The reality is that both of these things are secondary to what would happen if you had solar panels on your home and an electric car.

The cost of a federal program to make everyone have a steel cup would likely be more than the longterm cost of a program to give tax credits for helping homeowners install solar panels and building a smart grid that allowed the redistribution of that energy in off peak hours and during peak hours for that matter (which would ultimately turn a profit).

Could you elaborate on how a smart grid would work?

re: #187 Jimmah

I'm saying that your "I'm just asking questions " schtick falls into an easily recognisable pattern of concern trolling.

besides your astute psychoanalysis, how do you contribute...what are you doing to promote a smaller footprint?...what are your suggestions?...are you buying carbon credits?...tell us your take on the UN?...where is your juju?

re: #200 Blue Fin

Do you think that if the inevitable and grim scenario of climate change occurs, that it is simply nature's way of balancing the planet back to normalcy? As science and medicine advances and allows lifespans to continually extend, one must ask just when the planet becomes over populated and nature forces a reduction through disease or climate.

Too deep!

Pull up!

Pull up!

re: #156 Dark_Falcon

LArge corporations sometimes donate to groups on both sides of an issue, as a way to make sure they have a hand in shaping legislation.

Agree 100%. And now some have decided to "cut loose" the AGW alarmists. Why do you think that is? Do they smell BS? They saw it all along, but now the "public" is seeing it too.

re: #201 Racer X

Nope. You just have to have a big, dark, gnarled pit inside of you.

re: #199 Racer X

I googled.

And?

re: #204 Racer X

too late

Boo!

Sup, jokers?

re: #207 Walter L. Newton

And?

The Diamond Age By Neal Stephenson

re: #179 Dark_Falcon

A couple days ago, there was short discussion on the merits of cardboard cups for coffee versus stainless steel cups. I wanted to ask your opinion, which is the better idea: using a number of cardboard cups, or buying a single steel one (bearing in mind the carbon use inherent in steel production).

What about glass or ceramic cups?

re: #210 Racer X

The Diamond Age By Neal Stephenson

Did you Google that?

re: #209 cliffster

OK wtf was that?

re: #212 Walter L. Newton

Did you Google that?

I had too!

/I'm deeply shallow

re: #200 Blue Fin

Do you think that if the inevitable and grim scenario of climate change occurs, that it is simply nature's way of balancing the planet back to normalcy? As science and medicine advances and allows lifespans to continually extend, one must ask just when the planet becomes over populated and nature forces a reduction through disease or climate.

Little Master Marvin Fucking Sunshine.

eliminate the conflict and people have nothing...I'm not surprised

re: #185 MandyManners

Gaia is goddess and Al Gore is her prophet.

Mandy channelling
TFK Al Gore bullshit
Subject of Haiku

re: #213 Racer X

OK wtf was that?

I don't know; maybe your nightmares tonight will answer that question. Let me know.

re: #205 charlesincharge

Agree 100%. And now some have decided to "cut loose" the AGW alarmists. Why do you think that is? Do they smell BS? They saw it all along, but now the "public" is seeing it too.

No, what I think is that right now the deniers have the political momentum, so the corporations are backing them more. Again, you overreach. I'm afraid I must say that this is a pattern.

re: #86 ludwigvanquixote

For all of the whining about CRU... all of the smears and all of the bullshit.

NO ONE has ever proven that the data sets they used are false.

NO ONE has ever proven that their conclusions were invalid.

NO ONE of the deniers mentions the other major data sets - that corroborate CRU.

NO ONE of the deniers actually talks about the science or the data itself.

NO ONE of the deniers notices that the data they whine about is on the web, and that the methodology used is previously published.

NO ONE admits that this is nothing more than a smear job done by the evil to mislead the gullible and the stupid.

NO ONE admits that there is no freedom of information act in America for someones' research that means that just anyone can go pell mell through a scientists work, and then they confuse the British rules of it with American rules. While we are at it, the published data is well ALREADY PUBLISHED AND ON THE WEB.

NO ONE admits that the dozens of CRU requests all came from climate deniers fanatics in an attempt to hamper the work of honest scientists with endless paperwork - for things that were already on the web!

Doubt that all the data was on the web? Really?

Download it here.

[Link: hadobs.metoffice.com...]

You can also see the methodology.

But don't let honest facts like these get in the way of a good smear.

I'm just going to quote this in its entirety for emphasis. :D

re: #211 Alouette

I think the easiest way to think of it is in terms of energy. It takes shitloads of energy to make ceramics and steel. Much less so to make paper. Steel and ceramics are massier, too, so for transport, they're (tied to the #of use-equivalents) going to burn up more energy there, too.

The only really 'good' thing is a fully sustainable one made from green energy.

We don't really have too many of those yet.

re: #218 cliffster

I don't know; maybe your nightmares tonight will answer that question. Let me know.

LOL!

I'm still trying to figure out this one.

re: #203 albusteve

besides your astute psychoanalysis, how do you contribute...what are you doing to promote a smaller footprint?...what are your suggestions?...are you buying carbon credits?...tell us your take on the UN?...where is your juju?

Well, for one thing - the biggest contribution anyone can make - condoms!

re: #215 MandyManners

I'm married so don't even go there

re: #217 Jimmah

Mandy channelling
TFK Al Gore bullshit
Subject of Haiku

yeah? so what...why don't you answer my #203?...what's your story?

re: #224 Blue Fin

I'm married so don't even go there

In bed

re: #223 Jimmah

Well, for one thing - the biggest contribution anyone can make - condoms!

[Video]

pretty weak for all your blather...you post a video and I should take you serious?...I think not

re: #222 Racer X

LOL!

I'm still trying to figure out this one.

Whoever made that is against something. Fiercely against it, whatever it is.

re: #225 albusteve

yeah? so what...why don't you answer my #203?...what's your story?

Answered you.

re: #143 Ojoe

Carbon Credits = Big money = Corruption.

*spew*

There's corruption in every corner of government! The solution of course, is anarchy! No more government, that'll solve it! Durr.

*retches chicken bones and the remnants of a couple of Long Island Ice Teas into a filthy gas station latrine*

Has anyone here used the 'Shake Weight' yet?

re: #224 Blue Fin

I'm married so don't even go there

Huh?

re: #228 cliffster

Whoever made that is against something. Fiercely against it, whatever it is.

Cthulhu

re: #221 Obdicut

I think the easiest way to think of it is in terms of energy. It takes shitloads of energy to make ceramics and steel. Much less so to make paper. Steel and ceramics are massier, too, so for transport, they're (tied to the #of use-equivalents) going to burn up more energy there, too.

The only really 'good' thing is a fully sustainable one made from green energy.

We don't really have too many of those yet.

Yeah but, glass, ceramic and steel are reusable, but paper is one use and throwaway. How much energy does a local pottery kiln take up?

re: #232 MandyManners

exactly

re: #200 Blue Fin

Do you think that if the inevitable and grim scenario of climate change occurs, that it is simply nature's way of balancing the planet back to normalcy? As science and medicine advances and allows lifespans to continually extend, one must ask just when the planet becomes over populated and nature forces a reduction through disease or climate.

I do not ascribe a motive to nature.

The reality of the laws of nature is vastly more grim than any personification.

Nature is not a she. It is neither an earth mother hippy chick or a raging bloody beast.

Nature is a set of cold hard laws and relationships between physical entities.

Those laws and relationships do not have love or kindness. They do not have malice or hatred either.

The laws are completely pitiless with no notion of mercy or care whatsoever how you feel about them.

They will kill you dead. It is an automatic response to doing thongs that will get you killed.

No one says that jumping off a cliff on to jagged rocks will be good for you. Gravity does not show any feeling as to whether or not to accelerate you, and the rocks below do not care when their electromagnetic repulsion (between them and you) stops you and smears you to jelly. There is no appeal.

Is gravity less of a natural law than any other process of the Earth?

The reality of nature is it will kill you in a million ways if you do something stupid. With AGW we are doing stupid things.

When you add GHGs, you get hot. When you get hot enough, all sorts of things you will not like happen, because that is what happens when things get hot. There is no appeal.

What we have in that question is a desire to make what is happening more personal. If nature has a plan, it is like G-d having a plan and you can then maybe appeal or reason - or at the very least ascribe meaning.

The meaning here is that G-d will let you suffer the consequences of your actions. If you don't believe in him then don't worry about that argument, but if you do, please understand he does not stop bullets racing through the heads of those who put a gun to their temple and squeezed the trigger.

For that matter, G-d has been in the business of killing cute puppies and kindly grandmothers for quite some time.

No, He will let natural laws take their course.

The natural laws know no pity.

The only meaning to it is that humans like to believe that they can aviod cause and effect.

re: #236 ludwigvanquixote

why don't you answer my #176?...show some leadership here

re: #203 albusteve

besides your astute psychoanalysis, how do you contribute...what are you doing to promote a smaller footprint?...what are your suggestions?...are you buying carbon credits?...tell us your take on the UN?...where is your juju?

There is very little more that Jimmah or I could do to reduce our carbon footprint, and even with international travel we're still both dramatically under average footprint for the US (me) and UK (him).

Thanks for asking.

re: #227 albusteve

pretty weak for all your blather...you post a video and I should take you serious?...I think not

I made a very serious point actually. If you actually watched the video you might have realised that. But aside from that, I recycle whenever possible, and try not to be wasteful in my consumption. I also try to get other people to take the subject on climate change seriously, instead of dismissing it.

re: #202 Dark_Falcon

Could you elaborate on how a smart grid would work?

A smart grid would have internet technology to redistribute energy.

It would continuously analyze energy usages and those area that had a surplus would divert energy to those areas that had a demand.

Say for instance that you had solar cells in your house and supplimented your electric usage by 50% in this way. Say that you had fully charged batteries in your house. The sun is still shining. You are still generating power, but you can not use it.

The smart grid would then divert some of the output from your solar cells to someone else who needed it.

Of course, since the electric company is saving money by getting the energy from you and not having to generate the extra power itself, you get a massive rebate on your electric bill and the electric company still makes a profit.

re: #235 Blue Fin

exactly

Huh?

Repo Men Jack Soda Commercial

re: #236 ludwigvanquixote

Thanks for the thoughtful response and I believe in an indifferent nature/universe that will adjust itself to achieve proper balance one way or another.

re: #240 ludwigvanquixote

A smart grid would have internet technology to redistribute energy.

It would continuously analyze energy usages and those area that had a surplus would divert energy to those areas that had a demand.

Say for instance that you had solar cells in your house and supplimented your electric usage by 50% in this way. Say that you had fully charged batteries in your house. The sun is still shining. You are still generating power, but you can not use it.

The smart grid would then divert some of the output from your solar cells to someone else who needed it.

Of course, since the electric company is saving money by getting the energy from you and not having to generate the extra power itself, you get a massive rebate on your electric bill and the electric company still makes a profit.

Who is going to buy solar cells for my house and wire it in?

re: #240 ludwigvanquixote

A smart grid would have internet technology to redistribute energy.

It would continuously analyze energy usages and those area that had a surplus would divert energy to those areas that had a demand.

Say for instance that you had solar cells in your house and supplimented your electric usage by 50% in this way. Say that you had fully charged batteries in your house. The sun is still shining. You are still generating power, but you can not use it.

The smart grid would then divert some of the output from your solar cells to someone else who needed it.

Of course, since the electric company is saving money by getting the energy from you and not having to generate the extra power itself, you get a massive rebate on your electric bill and the electric company still makes a profit.

Usually in these arrangements, the power company buys your excess power back. That way, it's not theft.

We're all gonna die
- Billy (Predator)

re: #238 iceweasel

There is very little more that Jimmah or I could do to reduce our carbon footprint, and even with international travel we're still both dramatically under average footprint for the US (me) and UK (him).

Thanks for asking.

I trust your answer...I'm ready to get down to the brass tacks...I want ideas and solutions...all this bickering just makes for a bad vibe between people that would otherwise be friends

re: #222 Racer X

I'm still trying to figure out this one.

It becomes all the more dementedly hilarious when you learn it's a satire of the painting described here :)