The Hits Keep on Coming
By PoliPundit ~ February 7th, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
But it’s peer-reviewed science! No, it’s not.
Subscribe to blog feed.
Subscribe to blog feed.
Subscribe to blog feed.
- Polls
- The Crystal Ball Sees Democrat Doom
- Poll
- Schadenfreude
- Polls
- Victory!!! Tea Party conservative Joe Miller defeats establishment porkmeister Lisa Murkowski
- “Wow, he looks so skinny! His job is taking a toll.”
- Sestak in More Trouble
- Poll
- Quote of the Day
Analysts
Bloggers
-
Archives:
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- September 2002
February 7th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I am pleased to see that Polipundit has such trust in Chris Field as a reliable source.
Because, Chris Field has also said the following:
We are basically looking now at a future climate that’s beyond anything we’ve considered seriously in climate model simulations.
There is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems, which have been storing a lot of carbon for thousands of years. We don’t want to cross a critical threshold where this massive release of carbon starts to run on autopilot.
We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries, like China and India, saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal. If we’re going to continue re-carbonizing the energy system, we’re going to have big CO2 emissions in the future.
What have we learned since the fourth assessment? We now know that, without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought. If you look at the set of things that we can do as a society, taking aggressive action on climate seems like one that has the best possibility of a win-win. It can stimulate the economy, allow us to address critical environmental problems, and insure that we leave a sustainable world for our children and grandchildren. Somehow we have to find a way to kick the process into high gear. We really have very little time.
Golden Rule of the Denialists: quote a scientist as factual, but only if it is in the best interest of Denialism. Otherwise, the very same scientist is a commie.
February 7th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
I still don’t really get why the wingnuts have so throughly embraced kooky anti-science thinking when it comes to AGW. The problem with picking gratuitous fights with science is that there is a very high likelihood that reality will eventually intrude and the basis for the criticism exposed as irrational hysteria.
Given the risk of looking so utterly stupid, it really does amaze me that wingnuts are still willing to jump into this in the manner they do. I suppose they simply just cannot help themselves.
February 7th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Keep drinking the Kool aid-glug glug-its all been proven-glug-peer reviewed-glug-total consensus-glug glug glug. So funny. I guess Denial is the best recourse when your secular fundamentaist religion is being ripped to pieces
February 7th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
“I guess Denial is the best recourse when your secular fundamentaist religion is being ripped to pieces.”
Nope, reality is.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
the pro-GW scientists fudged the data … making the GW-scam invalid. Just like you McRock, and your side-dick Pluto…
February 7th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Pluto:
It’s over. Don’t try to defend the indefensible.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Wow, now I know it isnt pc to use the word retard, but Pluto and McCrock really do qualify. Is there some reason you want to prostrate yourself to Government you pansies? Are you so afraid of just living your life and letting the rest of us be free? Move to Cuber. Be happy.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:41 am
Don’t try to defend the indefensible.
Scientific method is indefensible? Science is indefensible? When you get cancer, will you refuse any treatment because scientific method is indefensible? Will brucefdb tell the oncologist to move to Cuber and stop being so afraid of living his life and letting the rest of us be free?
The USA is the greatest country in the world for many, many reasons, and one of them is its high regard for scientific research, both publicly funded and private sector. I will always defend the strength and rigor of these institutions against Anarchists and Lysenkoism.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:12 am
Wow!!!-Hey dummy, there has been no scientific method or peer review or consensus-you still can’t figure that out? A partial summary-they have been caught throwing away raw data, not being able to give info such as where they are geting temps from, inexplicably lessening by 3/4 data points, actively conspiring to violate the FOIL law, actively conspiring to censor opposing view points, foisting apocalyptic predictions on the public either with no basis, based on dissertations, pamphlets, or other sources that have never been vetted, or just made up out of thin air. Just be quiet before you look even more stupid
February 8th, 2010 at 5:52 am
It looks like dch has been reading the Denialists’ talking points. When you listen with your right ear glued to the Denialist loudspeaker, does that ear ever start to ring?
inexplicably lessening by 3/4 data points
Hilarious, “3/4 data points”. That has no meaning, dummy, NONE. Just be quiet before you look even more stupid.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:06 am
Pluto…..I hope you are just an old hippy and not a young person. What a waste of life to be a liberal. Very sad. On your knees to government every day.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:11 am
Hey dummy, I have been following the global cooling, sorry, global warming, sorry global climate change nonsense for over 20 years. Took college courses in atmospheric sciences and had professors pointing out all the nonsense in the early 90s. So in other words your typical liberal arguing point of just accusing people of reading stuff from recently and just repeating it is, as usual, wrong. Listen I understand in your religion that you and the other kool aid drinkers believe we have injured and angered Mother Earth and Mother Earth is now exacting revenge on us by raising temperatures to levels not seen, oh right since medieval times. I understand your religion compels you. Please just stop forcing your religion and indulgences(carbon credits) and penance (taxes) on the rest of us.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:18 am
Listen I understand in your religion…
Scientific method and science are religions? That’s a new one. Did your atmospheric science prof teach you that one?
Speaking of your college courses, what is “3/4 data points”?
had professors pointing out all the nonsense…/i>
Please give an example of what your professors (plural) said.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:19 am
off
February 8th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Pluto”
“Scientific method is indefensible? Science is indefensible?”
AGW is not science. It’s politics.
Ironically, real scientic inquiry has exposed it.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:55 am
AGW is not science. It’s politics.
Nice hypothesis. How would you test it, and how would you determine the robustness of your conclusions?
Ironically, real scientic inquiry has exposed it.
I see, it was tested! How? And how was it determined the robustness of the conclusions?
Or…was it a political conclusion?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:53 am
Global warming alarmism is Lysenkoism. GWA is funded by governments to produce “science” beneficial to government growth and control. GWA “science” is identical to the methods used by Lysenko and his government (the old USSR) to suppress dissent, silence critics, and to defame any who questioned data.
Lysenkoism seeks to conform science to political or religious philosophy. Lysenko himself asserted that members of a species would never compete with members of their own species since that militates against survival of the species. That nicely dovetails with tenets of “scientific socialism” that seek to equalize all materialist outcomes among humanity as zero-sum, all-equal, and uniform in spirit. What really heappened, of course, were disastrous winter wheat harvest for decades, because it was not science seeking truth but partisans dictating desires…and the deaths of millions.
The only difference that comes to mind is that Lysenko could phone Stalin to have opponents sent to the gulag, and GWA adherents can’t seem to do that. But the tone of Pluto and McRock sure suggest a desire and willingness to be able to do so.
Oh, and the latest: the predicted failure of African crops in a decade was based upon an unpublished student thesis and was part of the IPCC’s recommendations to government, the portion of the Nobel-winning documents that were really supposed to be peer-reviewed. NOT!
I think that supports the asser4tion that GWA is politics and not science.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:54 am
AGW is funded by governments to produce “science” beneficial to government growth and control.
Never ceases to amaze me that people such as yourself are skeptical of the scientific process but yet are willing to unflinchingly embrace conspiracy theories.
You know, come to think of it, the polio vaccine in the 1950′s was likely a plot by commie scientists to take census and infiltration of government. Has the right wing audit blogosphere considered that there is a direct and traceable link between the 1950s vaccine program and the IPCC?
It could be HUGE.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:02 am
AGW is not science. It’s politics.
Nice hypothesis. How would you test it, and how would you determine the robustness of your conclusions?
…..
HAHAHHA!
Do you live in a cocoon?
When beliefs are based on lies, it’s hard to admit it. Isn’t it?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Oh my! It’s almost as if this isn’t based on science!
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/07/even-more-problems-found-in-ipcc-report-on-agw/
February 8th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Oh my!
Here come the religionists!
http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/02/05/science-not-evangelism-india-quits-ipcc/
February 8th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Africa-Gate? U.N. Fears of Food Shortages Questioned
FOXNews.com
The U.N.’s controversial climate report is coming under fire — again — this time by one of its own scientists, who claims that warnings of a climate-caused African food shortage is bogus
February 8th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Dutch Point Out New Mistakes in U.N. Climate Report
FOXNews.com
The IPCC’s beleaguered climate report faces the prospect of still more errors, as Dutch authorities point out factual inaccuracies about the Netherlands.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:34 am
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/penn-state-probe-michael-mann-total-whitewash/
February 8th, 2010 at 10:16 am
AGW is funded by governments to produce “science” beneficial to government growth and control.
Never ceases to amaze me that people such as yourself are skeptical of the scientific process but yet are willing to unflinchingly embrace conspiracy theories.
Stalin to have opponents sent to the gulag, and GWA adherents can’t seem to do that.
You mean, in your conspiracy they have tried?
But the tone of Pluto and McRock sure suggest a desire and willingness to be able to do so.
Right… An equally stupid statement would be to say that the tone of your post suggests a desire and willingness to slap babies.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Never ceases to amaze me that people such as yourself are skeptical of the scientific process but yet are willing to unflinchingly embrace conspiracy theories.
The conspiracy idea is your projection, not my conclusion.
That contemporary university tenured positions are dominiated by leftist sentiments is not disputable. That climatology is dominated by researchers having leftist sentiments is therefore highly likely and does not require a conspiracy or active organization to make that probable. That prinicples at both East Anglia and Nasa have used shame, dishonor, and ridicule to condemn any who questioned the theses of fashionable climatology – which is about the best way to term it now – supports rather then diminishes assertions of researcher collusion.
As I said abover, the latest and very significant “error” touches what IPCC supporters claimed was the absolutely most peer-reviewed portion of the IPCC’s product, and it is now revealed to be a sham.
Better to get off the boat before you get your own feet wet.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:32 am
That contemporary university tenured positions are dominated by leftist sentiments is not disputable.
More accurately, university tenured positions are dominated by bright people, and they tend to have progressive outlooks.
That climatology is dominated by researchers having leftist sentiments is therefore highly likely
More accurately, climatology is dominated by researchers that are bright, otherwise they would not get grant funding and tenure.
That prinicples at both East Anglia and NASA have used shame, dishonor, and ridicule to condemn any who questioned the theses of fashionable climatology
More accurately, this is a vast overstatement motivated by political agenda.
And so, you are back at GO, do not collect $200.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:34 am
More accurately, university tenured positions are dominated by bright people, and they tend to have progressive outlooks.
Heh. Progressive, like Stalin?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:35 am
or, maybe, Lysenko?
February 8th, 2010 at 10:36 am
FOXNews.com
It is the little pearls like this that make this website funnier than the Sunday comics.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Heh. Progressive, like Stalin?
Are you free-associating…like Hitler?
February 8th, 2010 at 11:13 am
“That contemporary university tenured positions are dominiated by leftist sentiments is not disputable.”
Ipso facto, everything they produce MUST be tainted by their alleged political biases, even if they have nothing to do with politics (as is the case with most “tenured positions at contemporary universities”)?
Unless you are ready to throw away ALL of western science on the basis of a “liberal bias” of professors and scientists, this argument amounts to exactly nothing in the debate. Science is not politics; although there is certainly politics in science, it does not progress forward as it has for centuries to continue to enrich mankind as it has unless these extraneous influences are not routinely negated by data, falsifiability and fact.
Just think about what our world would look like if the only models for the world were based on supernatural religious beliefs. So instead of going to the doctor we would pray, instead of talking on the phone or internet we would pray, etc. Has the so-called liberal bias of doctors caused you to doubt the effectiveness of antibiotics? The liberal bias of physicists to raise questions about gravity, light or electricity?
Soooooo, when the general scientific consensus is that AGW is not occurring, you can get back to us with that revelation. And it may turn out that this does come to pass someday, under further SCIENTIFIC scrutiny.
Until then, you are simply cherry picking a few specific data points to fit your own pre-conceived conclusions. Political gamesmanship and childish “Gotcha” games are nothing more than pin pricks to the twin pillars of Reason and Logic that are at the foundation of science, so go ahead and knock yourself out broadcasting your ignorance to everyone and anyone who will listen, because for those who understand how science works and what it can and cannot accomplish it is abundantly clear that you 1) don’t know what you’re talking about, and 2) your criticism is purely political and on that basis is worth nearly nothing in pragmatic terms.
Because only people who have “drunk the Cool-Aid” of wingnut orthodoxy are going to believe you anyway.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Warner, you seem to think that all scientists have a liberal bias. That is not true, I am surte, but judging from the facts in the AGW debate, debate was silenced by those having the power to silence it. The evidence is coming in dribblesd that the data was cooked to gain money and political power and facts were suppressed. That is bad science. It is baloney.
Soooooo, when the general scientific consensus is that AGW is not occurring, you can get back to us with that revelation. And it may turn out that this does come to pass someday, under further SCIENTIFIC scrutiny.
How can that ever occur if the politics of climatology prevent debate and examination of process and facts?
Because only people who have “drunk the Cool-Aid” of wingnut orthodoxy are going to believe you anyway.
Your projection is proceless.
Pluto: Are you free-associating…like Hitler?
Hitler was a statist – a progressive. He believed he had science on his side and that progressive control of everything would result in the ultimate benefit to mankind. Hitler is one of yours!
February 8th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Well said, via Instapundit:
——————-
ARNOLD KLING ON the Progressive tantrum. “My point is that the ones throwing the temper tantrum right now are the Progressives. They think that the 2008 election gave them the right to operate like China’s autocracy, and they are lashing out hysterically at those they perceive as preventing them from doing so. On the one hand, the villains are a small minority in the Senate. Or maybe the villains are the incoherent majority of the people. The important point is that Progressives are never wrong.”
Related: Jay Cost: “America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job.”
February 8th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Hitler is one of yours!
Your projections are priceless.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:42 am
The important point is that Progressives are never wrong.
At least, as accused by the sanctimonious right.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Pluto:
It’s over. You’re embarassing yourself.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Ken_phd:
I am chastened. Totally chastened. I had no inkling that AGW was a giant conspiracy concocted by liberal commie scientists and paid for by the socialist government simply to create data in order to control society. And it was all brought down by blogger auditors.
Stunning.
And that the WMD were moved to Syria, that too is difficult to come to grips, but so true.
Plus, I really admire your phd.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
This is really amazing to watch. The UN, global warming believers and other fellow travelers are now admitting to the myriad of problems, the lack of actual verified science, that comments were not peer reviewed, etc and people like Pluto are still arguing that the science and research have no problems. Stuck on stupid
February 8th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
…. looks like another possible 90+ comments on this post … thanks to that dumb@ss Pluto posting his nonsense drivel over and over. Pluto — if you care to be a slave to an autocratic gov’t, move to Cuba. If that’s not possible, you can work for me … under these conditions:
1) You’ll be chained in and cant leave the yard
2) You’ll be expected to heel when I tell you or get a smack on your behind
3) You’ll have water anytime, and I’ll give you dog food 2X a day
4) you’ll have a dog house in the backyard, w/an old blanket in the winter
5) If your a good doggie, I may throw you a treat from time to time.
6) If you engage in “bad behavior” — such as acting out or voicing your disapproval to the household policies, you’ll be sold or be given back to the animal shelter.
So as long as I give you food and water (but no other freedoms) and you don’t cause a disturbance and remember I’m the boss, then no problem. we’ll get along fine .
February 8th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
dch, there is a house, and you say,
“But, the door isn’t properly hung, it isn’t a house.”
And the AGW realists say,
“But look, it is still a house.”
And you reply,
“But, there are some shingles missing, and a window broken, it is all falling down and therefore isn’t a house.”
But the AGW realists say, it won’t fall down, and it is still a house.
dch and his kind are removing water from the ocean using an eyedropper, while shouting that they have drained the ocean dry, sucking down stupid.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Wow Circular Argument alert. Just because you have already have and are continuing to find problems, lies and other incorrect things in the process, facts, history, projections, etc. regarding Global Warming abd the IPCC report, All the things you haven’t disproven (changing of the burden) must still be deemed to be true, even though we are basing the presumption they are true on the same people, processes, facts, history, projections that have already been proven wrong or false or to have lied in the 1st place. Wow!!! Liberal Logic everyone.
So in your little world scientific theories are deemed to be correct until proven totally wrong. The fact that we now know that major assertions made about Global Warming or that are in the IPCC report are backed up with absolutely nothing in some cases or by sources that have not been vetted or the the mythical “peer reviewed” means we should still assume that everything in else in the report has been. ROTFLMAO. Just stop-you people are pathetic. You lost deal with it.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
RIP John Murtha.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
I hope he was a Christian. I respect his military service; but he really turned into a greedy so-and-so. May his family receive comfort in knowing he was, at times, a great American. And, unlike many others of his profession, all his wounds were in front.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
1970′s – Global Cooling
1990′s – Global Warming
Lefty solution to inconsistency?……..Climate Change. Because the climate never changes on it’s own………..
February 8th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
The argument seems to be “Well, yes, we lied a lot… but you can believe the rest of the things we told you.”
I think that would be foolish. Especially when the leaders of the AGW scam have purposefully created hysteria to enrich themselves.
Be very glad I’m not in charge. I would have them hanged, drawn, and placed in gibbets for the sport of the crows.
Since we still have the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that can’t happen. Still want to call it a “Living Document”?
February 8th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
@ Joe In-Global cooling, global warming, global climate change, predictions of famines due to overpopulation estimates (that have never occurred) made every decade since the 70s, predictions we are going to run out of oil shortly-made every decade since the 70s, Amazon rainforest was suppose to be gone by 2000, 100 million Americans with AIDS, etc, etc, etc. They are stuck on stupid. If some religous cult kept making apocalyptic predictions, that never occured, these people would be laughing themselves silly, but they never notice that the secular religion they belong to has been doing the same thing for over 30 years and they still keep believing in it.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Be very glad I’m not in charge. I would have them hanged, drawn, and placed in gibbets for the sport of the crows. Since we still have the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that can’t happen. Still want to call it a “Living Document”?
A murderous rampage which BCL will think is A-OK because it does not refer to his beloved teabaggers.
Musing out loud about murder is OK…when Republicans do it.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
“Especially when the leaders of the AGW scam have purposefully created hysteria to enrich themselves.”
Sure, because the critics have nothing to gain in the status quo, right?
February 8th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
@ LCB when people commit treason, perpetrate fraud, try to take away your rights under the guise of fake science, try to use fake science to take away your money-there should be some sort of penalty no?
@Warner-so not wanting to be told lies and have your life and finances invaded and controlled because of those lies and fraud is gaining from the status quo-mmmkay
Where do you people come from? How have you survived to adulthood?
February 8th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
global warming, global climate change, predictions of famines due to overpopulation estimates (that have never occurred) made every decade since the 70s, predictions we are going to run out of oil shortly-made every decade since the 70s, Amazon rainforest was suppose to be gone by 2000, 100 million Americans with AIDS, etc, etc, etc.
Quite a list there! Did you free associate yourself or did you have help with crack?
Denialists also have a rich history and company: there was no moon landing; there is no moon; Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy; the earth is not round; HIV doesn’t cause AIDS; the Holocaust did not happen; on and on and on. You folks never notice that the secular religion you belong to has been doing the same thing for over 30 years and yet you still keep believing in it and suck down the stupid.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Scott Lee Cohen (D) dropped out as the Democratic nominee for Illinois Lieutenant Governor last night, and IL Democratic Party Chairman and House Speaker Mike Madigan (D-Chicago) and others are planning to pick a replacement on the LG spot, the likely choice will be State Rep. Art Turner (D-Chicago).
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/
Outgoing IL State Comptroller Dan Hynes (D), who lost the Democratic gubernatorial primary to Governor Patrick Quinn (D) last week says he has no interest in the state’s No. 2 job.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
LCB when people commit treason, perpetrate fraud, try to take away your rights under the guise of fake science, try to use fake science to take away your money-there should be some sort of penalty no?
You should read up on Galileo as a road map for your plans to persecute the progress of modern science. You know, the Roman Inquisition.
February 8th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
isn’t amazing how Pavlovian the lefties’ responses are?
Oh yeah, Pavlov was a Soviet scientist… Of course they respond like that!
February 8th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
No Pluto I just thought of some, not all, some of the enviro-frauds promulgated by pompous lefty douche bags like you over the last 30 years and wrote them down. BTW- do you remember when you and your ilk were spewing the nonsense about those enviro frauds or is that thrown down the liberal memory hole? Do you remember lefties saying the same things about people who debunked those frauds then as what they are saying now? Idiots! Flat earthers! Deniers! You people have a very limited repetoire. History proved us right then and is proving us right now. You on the other hand are headed for the dustbin of history…..as usual.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
dch, I apologize, you misunderstood my posts. I personally do not approach AGW as an environmental or political question. If you review my posts, I view it as a scientific question. And so, my interest in your thought is the same as for that segment of society that resisted Copernicanism, and continues to resist Evolution. AGW should be considered on that level, by the way, it is that much of a revelatory paradigm shift.
February 8th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Pluto, NY State Governor David Paterson (D)’s office confirms they expected another sex scandal any moment now because of rumors that Paterson was knocking up some other woman at the Executive Mansion and rumors he fathered children out of wedlock.
If Paterson is forced out, and the current LG becomes governor, that would make it the 3rd consecutive governor in an entire 4-year term (Spitzer, Paterson, and some other guy).
February 8th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Pluto:
“I personally do not approach AGW as an environmental or political question”
Sure you do. And you call others deniers? What happened to that expensive education?
February 8th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Sure you do.
Note the word “personally”. I can see that might confuse you as a personal belief my amusement to watch you and yours obsession with AGW as an environmental or political question. But I would be insane to have any personal beliefs on AGW as an environmental or political question.
What happened to that expensive education?
I told you many times, I am a dog. That is, a brief stint in obedience school. OK, plus doctoral and post-doctoral studies, and a senior thesis on neurosecretion in Aplysia.
February 8th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Should be: I can see that it might confuse you…
February 8th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
A murderous rampage which BCL will think is A-OK because it does not refer to his beloved teabaggers.
Musing out loud about murder is OK…when Republicans do it.
)))LCB(((
Wrong
I’ve made myself clear on this blog that I believe just the opposite of what you just stated. I think it’s inappropriate.
Sweet murderous rampaging dreams you )))dumbass(((
February 8th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
“I’ve made myself clear on this blog that I believe just the opposite of what you just stated.”
Like when?
February 8th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Like when?
Like when I made it clear. Just expressed it again, unless you’re too stupid to recognize it.
Its there. Go find it. Unless you’re too busy fantasizing about mass murdering ‘teabaggers’ and posting it in public forums. )))dumbass(((
February 9th, 2010 at 6:16 am
I think it’s inappropriate.
You should ask setnaffa directly for an explanation of his remarks, otherwise it is obvious that your fake outrage is driven by partisanship.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:33 am
LCB — all your comments appear driven by partisanship. You must be related to Mcrock … or perhaps you are the same person.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Scientific method. Gee… doesn’t that involve repeatable experiments?
Tell us again about the original data the AGW priests erased, leaving only thir “corrected” data…
Scientific method my foot. It’s just another “snake oil” or “aluminum siding” scam.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:08 am
And the penalty for treason in England was hanging, drawing, and placement in a gibbet.
It’s not “murder” when done by a sovereign or government. Reread the post, leftlings…
Amaaaazing how easily they want to change the subject and take things out of context.
Let’s get Obama to give us another speech about how disagreeing with hiis AG’s decision makes us friends of al Qaeda… And then let’s look at the treatment of decisions by Bush AGs was handled by thr left.
Liars. All of ‘em.
AGW, War on Terror, Healthcare scares…
Just liars…
February 9th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Crickets chirping, still waiting for (((BCL))) to direct his fake outrage at setnaffa’s inexcusable comments.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:52 am
It’s not “murder” when done by a sovereign or government.
But it is when it is done by a murderous dictator, which is what you were referring to in your original posts.
(((BCL))) should be outraged…but he is not.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:56 am
LCB — you got too much time on your hands posting here. Go get a haircut and then get a job. Oh … guess you can’t get a job, thanks to 0buma’s wreckin’ the economy.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Scientific method. Gee… doesn’t that involve repeatable experiments?
You are absolutely correct. That is precisely why the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so strong: manifold approaches, repeatable results, leading to strong conclusions. For example, the “hockey stick” graph has been repeated multiple times by different groups of researchers, with similar results.
As I have said before, the scientific community is highly competitive. If a scientist had a testable idea that would de-bunk anthropogenic global warming, they would conduct the experiments in a heartbeat. There is great fame to be had in proving global warming wrong, as evidenced by the spirited attempts by Anthony Watts and others. Unfortunately, they don’t have the wherewithal to conduct hypothesis-driven experiments, they merely check the lab notes of others.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
L:
“the “hockey stick” graph has been repeated multiple times by different groups of researchers, with similar results.”
Son, you’re about 3 months late to the party. Have you been pulling a Rip Van Winkle?
February 9th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
You’re about 3 months late to the party.
No thanks, those Denialist parties are all about crack.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:40 am
Prominent climatologists are now calling for re-oranization or dismantling of IPCC.
Interestingly, the NYTimes’ article yesterday failed prinicpally to convey all the facts. More proof, I believe, of the political motivations colluding to impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on everyone.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:04 am
From the article that you link:
Think of what Fox News, the tea parties and the talk radio hosts can do with the material unearthed in the last few weeks.
As you say, more proof of the political motivations, one side is motivated by scientific data, the other by efforts to expose and exploit cracks in that data.
Which is the more compelling narrative? Noting here that you do not look at the data, you look SOLELY at the filtered interpretations from sources such as that you link. Have you every tried to look solely at the mountains and mountains of data?
February 10th, 2010 at 8:04 am
As you say, more proof of the political motivations, one side is motivated by scientific data, the other by efforts to expose and exploit cracks in that data.
My point, of course, is that the NYT did not mention the fact that the mountains of data have been questioned by some of the very scientists that participated in its compilation and in the reports presented to governments.
The NYT has political capital to harvest from the progressive agenda embedded into its “journalism”, implicily linked to the political agenda that fatally taints contemporary climatological science.
Also, it is a good thing to expose cracks in that data. I thought good scientific method involved testing the cracks. Unless one doesn’t want to decrease the grant money spigot…
February 10th, 2010 at 8:23 am
NYT did not mention the fact that the mountains of data have been questioned by some of the very scientists
Yet those very same scientists believe that the SUM data overwhelming supports AGW. You are pointing out the mouse, but ignoring the elephant in the same room, to paraphrase one of these scientists.
I thought good scientific method involved testing the cracks.
Precisely. And isn’t it pretty clear that this is happening? Scientific knowledge moves forward in fits and starts, and it would be disingenuous to highlight the slips backward, and not notice the highly robust and compelling movement forward. It would be disingenuous to try drive wedges into the cracks and not acknowledge the shear size and weight of the monolith holding the small cracks. That is what your linked essay was doing.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Yet those very same scientists believe that the SUM data overwhelming supports AGW.
And yet, in Nature, three out of four scientists recommend radically changing the IPSS to address, as I wrote, the problematic sum of data produced by IPCC that is now seriously trainted by the corrupt processes employed to publish and analyze it.
Now, if you wish to refer to the mountains or sum of data by some other synonym to avoid the fact that it is the sum or mountains of data that are being questioned by climatologists that worked producing some of it, I can suggest a good thesaurus…
February 10th, 2010 at 10:19 am
And yet, in Nature, three out of four scientists recommend radically changing the IPSS to address
I have read the issue of Nature (Feb 11, 2010), but you appear to be saying three out of four of all scientists, but that was not the case. There was an opinion piece by five scientists, perhaps that is what you were referring to?
You do realize that the scientists are discussing the IPCC, and whether to change it or scrap it. It would be disingenuous to infer that this casts doubt on the credibility of AGW—NONE of these five scientists would agree with you.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
The article I cited did involve five scientists and I did not mean to imply – or did I say – three out of four of all scientists believe IPCC should be scrapped or radically modifed. The subjects of the article are apparently important players in the climatology game.
From The Guardian(UK):
Perhaps unknown to many people, the process is started and finished not by scientists but by political officials, who steer the way the information is presented in so-called summary for policymakers [SPM] chapters. Is that right, the Guardian asked?
“The Nobel prize was for peace not science … government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change,” said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. [emphasis added]
This to me is the hardest admission yet that the IPCC is a political rather than a scientific entity. Pardon me if that misunderstanding is my fault, but those who have questioned the IPCC findings and recommendations have been consistently branded as Deniers, wingers, and anti-science idiots. Now that its mission has been revealed to be regulated by government employees and political officials, might we validly wonder if the IPCC recommendations likely are tainted by political self-interest, e.g., an agenda?
February 10th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Problem is that the IPCC is used as a surrogate for the underlying science. As long as the Denialists, wingers, and anti-science idiots conflate the IPCC and the science, they will also be subject to lumping.
As stated in previous posts, it is also disingenuous to give a scientist credibility when they are critical of the IPCC, then turn around and strip them of their credence when the same scientist states that the science underpinning AGW is quite robust.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“As you say, more proof of the political motivations, one side is motivated by scientific data, the other by efforts to expose and exploit cracks in that data.”
What shite…….Where the hell is this data….Then the responses…oh yeah…we destroyed it…no it’s over there but we have modified it…no its over there and we have removed 75 % of the data sites….and on and on
Where is the program you used to create this doomsday scenario…
What…I gave you the data and now you want the SW government employees and their contractors wrote…..You can’t have that because it’s proprietary.
All I have to say is what a friggin lie. Nobody here is anti-science….Proof AGW….
If I was a scientist…and wanted to prove AGW was true..I would
1. Pick a large area that has little water vapor and that is relatively high in altitude. Why…so I could minimize the effect of water vapor in my experiment. Also, I would pick a spot with very little human impact to limit urban heat island effects.
2. I would then run temperature, humidity, CO2 experiments over a long time span in this area……
Let me think….I know the Bolivarian Altiplano sounds like a good spot. What’s that you say….There are long running temperature stations in the Altiplano….Great….What’s that? Oh, GISS doesn’t use them…but their maps say Bolivia is a warm spot…how can that be if they don’t use the temperature stations…Oh they were some of the 75% cut out by the Climatologist…
..and you wonder why we doubt….
February 10th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
…and you wonder why we doubt….
Actually, I don’t. I know that you read exclusively Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, etc, plus mainstream media. Filtered information.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I know the Bolivarian Altiplano sounds like a good spot.
Let me guess, Anthony Watts?
February 10th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
No dumbass…it came from my inner Id….
Let me guess…since you can’t come up with a good reason for dropping such a prime area out of GISS (your talking points meme doesn’t quite cover that) you attack Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Right…rather than admit that you get your ideas from the denialist blogosphere, “The Bolivia Effect” or some such, you attack me by calling me a dumbass.
Watts, McIntyre, Chiefio, doesn’t matter, they are all from the same filter.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Bolivian glaciers are retreating at an Indy 500 clip, by the way.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
I’ve been to the Bolivian altiplano, I road in the back of a truck from Puno, Lake Titicaca, to La Paz, Bolivia, with less than a dollar in my pocket, reeling from bronchitis. 1980. It is an incredible place, you are short of breath at the 10,000 ft elevation, yet the isolated volcanoes rise above you.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Shite for brains….I do have a college degree…yeah coming from the lower middle of the economic spectrum I was certain sure I couldn’t make it through that big state university….Hell the Nuclear Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Thermo crap sure was easier than I thought….
but then again we can’t have thoughts unless we are spoon fed by some DENIALISTS. Look in the mirror L…read what has been happening. If you are for science then man up and admit what we have been seeing coming from Hadley, NASA GISS and the IPCC is political shite with little science.
At least I think for myself and understand a little of the friggin wavelengths we are looking at..
February 10th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Look in the mirror, it would be a lot easier if you just said that you got your Bolivia argument from a blog.
At least I think for myself…
Yet, you got your Bolivia Effect argument from a blog.
….I do have a college degree…
That was a given. And you are obviously quite bright, that is why you are being busted down.
Bring it up a notch. One way would be to go to the original literature.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Let me say this really slow so you will understand….
P-R-O-V-E that I got my idea from a Blog? You can’t…You are projecting just a little bit there aren’t you…You get yours from Blogs so therefore I must get mine from one…..
Please point me to one experiment which truly reflects atmospheric conditions that has proven CO2 and warming link…..A model isn’t real and doesn’t reflect atmospheric conditions.
Now, please entertain us with the reasons there are no temperature stations in Bolivia used by GISS…. and how their map can show such a very high rate of warming….
February 10th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
L:
While I congratulate you on your spirited defense of AGW, I’m afraid the tide has turned against you. When scientists “lose” data, they also lose credibility.
Not to worry. There will surely be a new cause d’jour springing up in the near future. Nature abhors a vacuum
February 11th, 2010 at 5:02 am
Well said, ken_phd.
In another fifty years when the cooling has begin in earnest because of some nforeseen solar or lunar or water vapor or Van Allen effect, the alarmists will be asessed as scientists on a mission allied with politicians that was fortunately averted.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
i consider it was a bit rushed, and overlooked some features that not many people discuss about. Everybody is aware of that the majority new smartphones have internet, so why present that primary perform at its bear minimum. Scroll up scroll down zoom in zoom out. Actually? which new cellphone doesnt do that? How bout discuss how the textual content rearranges itsself. Additionally the texting, very poor review. Why didnt you mention you need to use the mic and textual content with your voice? Disregarded ALOT of other more important options
August 18th, 2010 at 2:10 am
What a load of crap. this is embarrising, that a*s wipe got away with it. i can’t believe it. he tried to sell a senate seat and he got away with it. in the past when the fed have you in court that mean your goose is cooked. some head need to roll at the federal level.