Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails

[SMOKE 1,426]

you show ignorance in how science operates.

i fit that bill too. so, i have 2 quick questions. if GW is cut & dry fact.

1-why would any scientist fudge the numbers to make their case?

2-why is there approx. a 50/50 split from scientist that GW is real?

[HAL 9000 96]

you show ignorance in how science operates.

i fit that bill too. so, i have 2 quick questions. if GW is cut & dry fact.

1-why would any scientist fudge the numbers to make their case?

2-why is there approx. a 50/50 split from scientist that GW is real?

I don't think you represent the community accurately- unless you think the fraudulent petition shot down several times in the scientific community as well as here is somehow 'accurate.' Furthermore, processing data isn't exactly fudging data (not referring to the CRU case- I have seen people removed from academia for dishonesty)- its processing data.

Fudging data would mean making data up, changing magnitudes to create opposite results from that data that is collected, etc.

I suspect that outlier data that does not fit tried and true statistical methodology will be a major contributor to the raw data that was unfortunately purged at CRU.

Finally... I recognize that the particular brand of ignorance you admit is not the same one Joe suffers from, as per his stubborn refusal to claim easy understanding of science yet butcher its most simple precepts.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Climate skeptics have seized on several e-mails from Phil Jones to other researchers as evidence that prominent scientists have sought to silence their voices in the debate over global warming [Washington Post]. Among the alleged infractions are e-mails that suggest trying to keep the work of climate skeptics out of peer-reviewed journals, avoiding journals that published skeptics' articles, or hoarding information and keeping it away from global warming deniers.

Scientists and science writers like DISCOVER bloggers Phil Plait and Chris Mooney have entered the fray, arguing that although the hacked scientists' correspondence is less than angelic (and makes them look pretty bad with their words now in the light of day), the controversy is a non-issue because the body of climate change science remains strong. Or, to pull a metaphor from Columbia University geochemist Peter Kelemen, climate science is more a deck of cards than the flimsy house of cards skeptics claim. Some data and interpretations of those data are more certain than others, of course. But pulling out one or two interpretations, or the results of a few scientists, does not change the overall picture. Take away two or three cards, and there are still 49 or 50 cards facing you [Popular Mechanics].

The timing with which the e-mails reached the public may not be a coincidence, either. Some argue that the timing, just before next week's major climate talks in Copenhagen, seems meant to undermine the negotiations [The Guardian].

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/...uror-continues/

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Doesn't matter. Global warming is simply not good science as it has not convincingly ruled out other theories in existance. The fact that there is even a defense presented for this simply throws out the entire global warming hoax. Science is not a consesus, it is fact. If one thing disputes the facts it derails the theory until that one thing is proven unfeasible. Putting up a weak defense, which is no more than a different context of the ame words from a biased source, does not dismiss the thousands of other emails.

The cat is out of the bag and people "against" global warming should be relieved but very angry they were duped by these charletains seeking your tax dollars for non-productive work.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why is it not good science again?

And the cycle of naysaying continues. As I noted... more vocal indeed. This tends to happen when a stubborn refusal of fact and ignorance of simple procedures collide within the same people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Doesn't matter. Global warming is simply not good science as it has not convincingly ruled out other theories in existance.

:rofl:

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

you show ignorance in how science operates.

i fit that bill too. so, i have 2 quick questions. if GW is cut & dry fact.

1-why would any scientist fudge the numbers to make their case?

2-why is there approx. a 50/50 split from scientist that GW is real?

Stop making sense! There is absolutely to call for that!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

you show ignorance in how science operates.

i fit that bill too. so, i have 2 quick questions. if GW is cut & dry fact.

1-why would any scientist fudge the numbers to make their case?

2-why is there approx. a 50/50 split from scientist that GW is real?

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

....

Mike, I'll buy you a 6 pack of your favorite beer if you can prove the above is not factually accurate.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Obama fixed Global Warming! Why the heck hasn't he come out to claim it yet...that would settle the argument.

Rush is SO wrong on this. He should be declaring the problem "fixed" and giving credit to Obama and then instantly the liberal media would jump on it and finally the children would be saved.

It amazes me so many grown adults buy into this pure horsesqueeze. Not only do they think humans cause "this" , they think a meeting in Copenhagen can fix "it"! While scientists argue if theory holds water politicians will jump on every power grabbing, tax increasing scheme under WHAT indication it will help? None. But it is OK, the mind numbed robots just say "tax us, tax us, save the bears, tax us" What a bunch of turds for brains!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Obama fixed Global Warming! Why the heck hasn't he come out to claim it yet...that would settle the argument.

Rush is SO wrong on this. He should be declaring the problem "fixed" and giving credit to Obama and then instantly the liberal media would jump on it and finally the children would be saved.

It amazes me so many grown adults buy into this pure horsesqueeze. Not only do they think humans cause "this" , they think a meeting in Copenhagen can fix "it"! While scientists argue if theory holds water politicians will jump on every power grabbing, tax increasing scheme under WHAT indication it will help? None. But it is OK, the mind numbed robots just say "tax us, tax us, save the bears, tax us" What a bunch of turds for brains!

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

Obama fixed Global Warming! Why the heck hasn't he come out to claim it yet...that would settle the argument.

Rush is SO wrong on this. He should be declaring the problem "fixed" and giving credit to Obama and then instantly the liberal media would jump on it and finally the children would be saved.

It amazes me so many grown adults buy into this pure horsesqueeze. Not only do they think humans cause "this" , they think a meeting in Copenhagen can fix "it"! While scientists argue if theory holds water politicians will jump on every power grabbing, tax increasing scheme under WHAT indication it will help? None. But it is OK, the mind numbed robots just say "tax us, tax us, save the bears, tax us" What a bunch of turds for brains!

so much for that hotlink

[HAL 9000 96]

So I guess no comments as to why global warming science is bad science... hmmm... sour grapes... obstructionism... ignorance... and now one red herring after another. Lets speed up the whine list too.

And yeah, I guess global cooling killed Steven's hotlink.