or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 53

post #2081 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Aussie Skeptic Exposes Climate Data Fraud

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2082 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Reply to: “Ice cap thaw may awaken Icelandic volcanoes” - In short, the loss of all ice in Iceland would make the volcanoes less destructive

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2083 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Aussie Skeptic Exposes Climate Data Fraud

New lamps for old, new lamps for old, ...

Nothing new to see here, move along.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #2084 of 3039
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #2085 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Hummers tow old and very fat white males that have nothing under their hoods, if you know what I mean. They lack quite a bit size wise in a certain appendage.

racist...
post #2086 of 3039
Climategate is a crock of shit. Denialists require 100% accuracy from scientists and point to the 0.1% errors and claim the whole science should be tossed out with them. But the same standard somehow doesn't apply to their own errors...or egregiously false assumptions.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/hari

Quote:
At last! The controversy is over. It turns out the "scientific" claims promoted for decades by whiny self-righteous liberals were a lie, a fraud, a con--and we don't need to change after all. The left is humiliated; the conservatives are triumphant and exultant.

The year is 1954, and the "science" that has been exposed as a "sham" by conservatives is the link between smoking and lung cancer. Welcome to Tobaccogate, as Fox News would call it. The conservatives are championing professor Clarence Cook Little, who says he has discovered insurmountable flaws in the use of statistics and clinical data by "anti-tobacco" (and quasi-commie) scientists. The press reports the "controversy," usually without mentioning that Cook Little is being paid by the tobacco industry. A relieved nation lights up--and so, over the next few decades, millions of them die.

It is happening again. The tide of global warming denial is now rising as fast as global sea levels--and with as much credibility as Cook Little. Look at the deniers' greatest moment, Climategate, hailed by them as "the final nail in the coffin" of "the theory of global warming." A patient study by the British House of Commons has pored over every e-mail from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and interviewed everyone involved. Its findings? The "evidence patently fails to support" the idea of a fraud; the scientists have "no case to answer"; and all their findings "have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified" by other scientists. That's British for "it was a crock."

Yet a startling amount of denialism now, like Climategate, travels across the Atlantic from my country--Britain--to the United States. Yes, I know our accents make us sound instantly plausible, but it's time Americans knew who these Brideshead bull-scientists really are. Look, for example, at their doyen--a man named Christopher Monckton. He has been lauded by the Wall Street Journal, National Review and Rush Limbaugh for exposing the truth about global warming, and is used by the New York Times as a balancing voice against the claims of climate scientists. In fact, Monckton is an English aristocrat with no scientific training. He studied ancient Greece and Rome, and worked as a policy adviser for Margaret Thatcher.

Oh, and he claims he can cure HIV. Seriously. As journalist George Monbiot points out, Monckton has stated in writing that he is "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases...including...HIV." He is prone to such wild fantasies. He has stated that he persuaded Thatcher to use biological weapons in the Falklands War. He falsely claimed he is a member of the House of Lords and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. When challenged, Monckton has admitted to a weakness for telling "stories that aren't actually true."

Yet this man is treated as a great debunker of climate science in the United States. So what's his alternative scientific theory? In a speech in Minnesota last year, he explained it. "There is no problem with the climate," except that Greenpeace is "about to impose a communist world government on the world" and "you have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view." Warming is an excuse invented so that Obama can "sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever," and give it all to "third world countries."

That's the intellectual caliber of the most celebrated denialist. Yet when it comes to coverage of global warming, we are trapped in the logic of a guerrilla insurgency. The climate scientists have to be right 100 percent of the time, or their 0.01 percent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 percent of the time for their narrative--See! The global warming story is falling apart!--to be reinforced by the media. It doesn't matter that their alternative theories are based on demonstrably false claims, as they are with all the leading "thinkers" in this movement. Look at the Australian geologist Ian Plimer, whose denialism is built on the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, even though the US Geological Survey has shown they produce 130 times less. Or Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker, who says the Arctic sea ice can't be retreating because each year it comes back a little... in winter.

Many Americans assume that if a story has been in the news section of a reputable English newspaper, it has been fact-checked. One recent climate "scandal" that spread from Britain shows how these stories actually originate. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the umbrella organization of the world's climate scientists--explained that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest is at risk of dying if there is even a slight reduction in rainfall. This is true. It is the view of the most distinguished scientists in the field. The IPCC sourced this claim to a report by the World Wildlife Fund--when, in fact, it should have referred to a report by professor Dan Nepstad, whose work is mentioned only in passing by the WWF.

It was a minor footnoting error--but when a denialist blogger named Richard North noticed it, he announced he had found the IPCC making fake predictions. He tipped off the Sunday Times, owned by Fox king Rupert Murdoch. The newspaper's journalists quoted Dr. Simon Lewis, a leading rainforest expert, who explained that it was a very minor mistake and that the core claim is accurate. The paper ignored the bulk of his comments and mangled his quotes to make it sound like he agreed that the IPCC had been talking rubbish--and ran the "story" under the headline "UN Climate Panel Shamed by Bogus Rainforest Claim." It gave credit for "research by Richard North." The story was then zapped all over the United States as Amazongate, and as a result millions of people are now under the impression that the Amazon is in no danger. The Sunday Times refuses to admit it made a whopping error--in a story that attacks the IPCC for supposedly making a whopping error.

And while the United States has been engaged in these fake rows, the world may have just crashed into one of the climate's tipping points. For years, climate scientists have had a nightmare scenario. Buried in the hard Arctic permafrost is a massive amount of the gas methane, which causes thirty times more warming than carbon dioxide. There is more carbon in the world's methane deposits than in every lump of coal and barrel of oil on earth. As the poles defrost, it becomes possible that all of this gas will be farted out into the atmosphere--and trigger catastrophic warming.

Over the past year, culminating this March, a series of major on-the-ground scientific investigations of the frozen methane have been published. The author of one, Professor Tim Minshull, explained: "Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started." If you hold a match to the ground, a great flash of methane-fire now bursts forth.

Looking back, the historian Allan Brandt said the conservative-corporate machine that conned people into thinking smoking was safe pulled off "the crime of the century." We are now witnessing the crime of the twenty-first century, using the same strung-out old script. In his smoky hell, Clarence Cook Little must be offering a little chuckle.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2087 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2088 of 3039
Dp. Pd.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2089 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Climategate is a crock of shit. Denialists require 100% accuracy from scientists and point to the 0.1% errors and claim the whole science should be tossed out with them. But the same standard somehow doesn't apply to their own errors...or egregiously false assumptions.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/hari

More moron Monckton- Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duxG4...ayer_embedded#!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2090 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why cleaner air could speed global warming

This opinion piece doesn't even mention acid rain.

Geoengineering?

Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope -- or Worst Nightmare -- for Averting Climate Catastrophe

SO2 good, CO2 bad.

Quote:
In a recent paper in the journal Climate Dynamics, modelers forecast what would happen if nations instituted all existing pollution controls on industrial sources and vehicles by 2030. They found the current rate of warming -- roughly 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade -- doubled worldwide, and nearly tripled in North America.

Really? Citation? Link? Author? Title?

But no, just an obtuse reference to "a recent paper" in "the journal Climate Dynamics" well I'd like an actual citation, author(s) or even just the title of said paper.

But no, he has books to sell, and a geoengineered SO2 agenda to promote.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #2091 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

This opinion piece doesn't even mention acid rain.

Geoengineering?

Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope -- or Worst Nightmare -- for Averting Climate Catastrophe

SO2 good, CO2 bad.



Really? Citation? Link? Author? Title?

But no, just an obtuse reference to "a recent paper" in "the journal Climate Dynamics" well I'd like an actual citation, author(s) or even just the title of said paper.

But no, he has books to sell, and a geoengineered SO2 agenda to promote.

Here's our good friends climate deniers biggest achievement in regards to the economy of the US:
Worldwide Patents held in the field of Renewable energy (sciam):
EU 44%
US 14%

For the Bugeler: I know this does not add up to 100% but the rest of the world holds the remaining %.

Thanks for hampering this nation's economic future. Patent's are the thing you can make a lot of $ on, I hold a few patents and copyrights and they are affording me and family a very nice life. I can grow veggies, write songs, go on vacations and enjoy life without the need to work for money. Koch industries + FOX friends are costing us more that the entire TARP + stimulus + wars + Bush. No kidding.

Now move downwind from your closest Coal plant and pay for your own kids asthma, you f^%$#$^&^$$.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2092 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2093 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2094 of 3039

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z ...

This is new news now? NOT!

Richard Tol

Quote:
In an interview with Der Spiegel in February 21, 2005, he argued that temperature rises between 2-4 °C would also have advantages. North of a line drawn from Paris to Munich, people would benefit, e.g., from reduced energy bills. However, south of it, people would be overall "losers" of climate change.

Warming is real - and has benefits (Dated Feburary 2, 2007)

Quote:
Tol is a Denier, to use the terminology of the "science-is-settled" camp in the increasingly polarized global warming debate. Like many other Deniers, Tol doesn't think the evidence is in on global warming and its effects, he doesn't think there's reason to rush to action, and he doesn't think that crash programs to curb global warming are called for.

So articles that are already five and three years, respectively, clearly show Tol's biases.

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #2095 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Missing Heat Hides From Climate Scientists

Quote:
Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions on Earth that are not adequately measured. One such place is the deepest parts of the oceans. Compounding the problem, Earth’s surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. This inability to properly track energy has implications for understanding the way climate works and most definitely on predicting future climate. Obviously, if scientists are at a loss to identify the hiding place of the missing heat climate modelers are unable to include its possible future effects in their programs. With as much as half of the suspected heat energy buildup gone missing, it must be asked how well science understands Earth's climate.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2096 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2097 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2098 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2099 of 3039
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2100 of 3039
Quote:

Please post a few hundred links to the peer reviews of this blog.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2101 of 3039
There's a live debate with three of the UK's energy and climate change secretaries at 7pm GMT tonight (1 hours time). It's 90 mins long, you can listen live here- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-energy
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2102 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2103 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2104 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Please post a few hundred links to the peer reviews of this blog.

I don't know about that particular blog, but...

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

I expect franksargent to ad-hom each and every one of them.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2105 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I don't know about that particular blog, but...

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

I expect franksargent to ad-hom each and every one of them.

Maybe you are not understanding this. To simply say something is peer reviewed does not make it so. We would like to see the actual peer reviews.

"Supporting skepticism" is a far cry from "disproving".

Also this whole blog thing is dubious. Why don't you post links to pages that end in ".org", ".edu" or ".gov". Any worm with a PC can create a blog.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2106 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Maybe you are not understanding this. To simply say something is peer reviewed does not make it so. We would like to see the actual peer reviews.

"Supporting skepticism" is a far cry from "disproving".

Also this whole blog thing is dubious. Why don't you post links to pages that end in ".org", ".edu" or ".gov". Any worm with a PC can create a blog.

Most of those links go to just such a site. (.gov .org .edu.)

consensus?....... Nope.
post #2107 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Most of those links go to just such a site. (.gov .org .edu.)

consensus?....... Nope.

Some of these documents say: "For Peer Review Only"

Does this mean they are not supposed to be published in their current form?
They are awaiting peer review.

BTW several links go to the same document and some actually support MMGW.
Non dismiss it. Most, simply point to a very small area of observation and state the obvious.
A lot of them are from the 80's when earth population was 3 - 4 bill people not 6 bill.
This completely discredits the collection of links. Scientists did not have the same data or technology in the 80's then they do have now.

Jazzy go home.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2108 of 3039
How does any of this dispute the fact that because of a class of people who make billions of yours and my back will fight with everything to keep making these billions.

Making your own energy is a big step towards personal freedom. Cleaning up the air and water is simply the sane thing to do.

Using less oil coal and other fuels which put tons of pollutants and not only CO2 should be everyones goal.

Global Warming or not, whatever..... my wallet says having solar panels and a plug in hybrid is extremely profitable.

My businesses say being GREEN brings sales. (ask Walmart)

Therefore if GW is or is not real or who causes it is completely irrelevant.
IT IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS.
Therefore it is American, cause we love things when they are good for business.
However because of the idiots on the right, we had to give the advantage to the Germans and the Chinese "Global Warming is a Hoax". Guess what, not everybody thinks so. Indeed enough people think it's real that it is now big business. Thank you oh righties for allowing other countries to take the lead and make all the $. The American People will find out what happened and who screwed up this multi billion (if not trillion) $ opportunity.
Thanks a again you f%^&*^%#&^%#(($*(%*^$^^$&%&&$&$&%^#*@#(*.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2109 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I don't know about that particular blog, but...

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

I expect franksargent to ad-hom each and every one of them.

Quote:
Rebuttals:

Failed attempts at "debunking" this list include,

- Lying about the paper counting method used. (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not counted.)

- Lying about the list being debunked because certain papers on the list do not "refute" AGW theory. (All papers support either skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.)

- Lying about peer-reviewed journals not being peer-reviewed. (Every journal listed is peer-reviewed.)

- Lying about the inclusion of a paper on this list as a representation of the position of it's author in regards to AGW theory. (The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors.)

- Lying about all climate related papers not on this list endorsing AGW theory. (There are thousands of climate related papers but few explicitly endorse AGW theory.)

- Lying that certain paper's age make them "outdated". (The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous.)

- Lying that Blog posts, Wiki pages and YouTube videos "refute" peer-reviewed papers (That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper.)

- Lying that since some of the papers are mutually exclusive the list is falsified. (The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.)



105 of these "peer reviewed" articles are from one urinal Energy & Environment;

Quote:
Skeptics on the journal's editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians, have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen.

When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"[11]

Some of the journal's articles opposing the mainstream scientific positions on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #2110 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2111 of 3039
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #2112 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

We would like to see the actual peer reviews.

Really? Since when have the peer reviews ever been released for (insert scientific journal name)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Some of these documents say: "For Peer Review Only"

If it is to a published paper then that was the only full copy available online at the time. If it is to a submitted paper then that should be self-explanatory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

BTW several links go to the same document and some actually support MMGW.

Which ones go to the same document? Some do support AGW but are listed because they do not support alarmist conclusions about the economic or environmental effects of AGW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

A lot of them are from the 80's when earth population was 3 - 4 bill people not 6 bill.

Some are, which is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

This completely discredits the collection of links.

Really? So a peer-reviewed paper published in the 80s that you subjectively do not like discredits a paper published since 2000? Interesting logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

105 of these "peer reviewed" articles are from one urinal Energy & Environment

You cannot even fully quote wikipedia with your smear attempt,

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

Quote:
"My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.

I concluded from a research project about the IPCC - funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s - that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.

The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a 'green' energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the 'danger'. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published - when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing 'climate skeptics' and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.

I myself have argued the cause of climate 'realism' - I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations - but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.

In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected 'climate skeptics' regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish."

- Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Editor, Energy & Environment
post #2113 of 3039
Thread Starter 
So, franksargent & Wormhole. Let me make sure I understand you. You find supposed problems and errors with a portion of those 700 papers, therefore all of them must be disregarded?

Yet, actual documented errors, inconsistencies, and outright lies in the U.N.'s IPCC reports must be ignored and do not have any bearing on the overall report and the conclusions thereof?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2114 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Sorry, duplicate post.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2115 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

So, franksargent & Wormhole. Let me make sure I understand you. You find supposed problems and errors with a portion of those 700 papers, therefore all of them must be disregarded?

Yet, actual documented errors, inconsistencies, and outright lies in the U.N.'s IPCC reports must be ignored and do not have any bearing on the overall report and the conclusions thereof?

Well on the one hand you're wrong, while on the other hand you're also wrong.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #2116 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Well on the one hand you're wrong, while on the other hand you're also wrong.

Well that clears things up...

Why is he wrong?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #2117 of 3039
He's wrong because Frank would be out of a job if he were right.

See the Army Corp of Engineers likely is making a bundle of cash having to revisit all their prior projects and making sure they can survive 100 ft changes in sea level and Cat 15 Hurricanes due to Global Climate Change Profiteering.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2118 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

He's wrong because Frank would be out of a job if he were right.

See the Army Corp of Engineers likely is making a bundle of cash having to revisit all their prior projects and making sure they can survive 100 ft changes in sea level and Cat 15 Hurricanes due to Global Climate Change Profiteering.

Of course oil and coal profiteering is much better.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #2119 of 3039
Biofuels could produce more greenhouse emissions than standard fuels: EU


Quote:
Four major studies are under way.

Chief among those fears is that biofuel production soaks up grain from global commodity markets, forcing up food prices and encouraging farmers to clear tropical forests in the quest for new land.

Burning forests releases vast quantities of carbon dioxide and often cancels out many of the climate benefits sought from biofuels.

Biodiesel from North American soybeans has an indirect carbon footprint of 339.9 kilograms of CO2 per gigajoule -- four times higher than standard diesel -- said the EU document, an annex that was controversially stripped from a report published in December.

Editing the report caused one of the consultancies, Fraunhofer of Germany, to disown it partly in a disclaimer.

But it has now been made public after Reuters used freedom of information laws to gain a copy.

The EU's executive European Commission said it had not doctored the report to hide the evidence, but only to allow deeper analysis before publishing.

Biodiesel from European rapeseed has an indirect carbon footprint of 150.3 kg of CO2 per gigajoule, while bioethanol from European sugar beet is calculated at 100.3 kg -- both much higher than conventional diesel or gasoline at around 85 kg.

Apparently this applies to fuels from certain crops, but it is unfortunate. I thought bio-fuels could help as a stop gap until hydrogen fuel cells are perfected, but this will probably put a damper on things. Not to mention the fact of the impact on world food supplies, but that is another subject all together.


On a different note: another environmental report that was edited for possible political reasons? Oh my!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #2120 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Of course oil and coal profiteering is much better.

Of course they are better. As a society we get much better use out of actual energy generated or products produced with coal and oil than we we do out of solutions to imaginary alarmism.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate