Expert: No Global Warming since 1995

[barfo]

TOLD YOU SO!

Yeah, your name is Vermeer and/or Rahmsdorf, right?

Interesting that the guys who pointed out the mistake estimate higher ocean levels than the retracted paper.

barfo

 

[ABM]

Seriously, though, even if there was global warming, what are we gonna do about it? I'd venture to guess that it would be things science and technology are working on anyway.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I've always maintained that scientists are only guessing about both global warming and the true effect of man upon it. Nonetheless, whether global warming is true to any degree and whether or not man's activities play any part, it simply behooves us to live responsively.

Not wanting to draw a bunch of childish flack, but I believe God created this planet and us. I further believe that man has been more or less given domain over the planet to tend it and use its resources wisely. To me, we've done a terrible job and many of the changes we're currently being asked to make have my support.

 

[boatsandstars]

Hey bingo, first rule of news. Don't quote articles by THE DAILY MAIL. It's so sad how hard you try.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey bingo, first rule of news. Don't quote articles by THE DAILY MAIL. It's so sad how hard you try.

Weak.

 

[Eastoff]

The issue is whether Global Warming is a man-made phenomena or not. Climate change has occured throughout the Earth's history. The problem is these Global Warming Alarmists have secured billions of dollars of funding and they are perpetrating a lie.

trying telling that to the species that go extinct during these climate changes

 

[Eastoff]

Seriously, though, even if there was global warming, what are we gonna do about it? I'd venture to guess that it would be things science and technology are working on anyway.

who do you think gives funding to these sciences and technology? people that want it to be fixed, right? if nobody thinks it's a problem and wants it to be fixed who is going to be willing to spend money on "imaginary problems"... see the problem with assuming it's not real?

 

[Denny Crane]

who do you think gives funding to these sciences and technology? people that want it to be fixed, right? if nobody thinks it's a problem and wants it to be fixed who is going to be willing to spend money on "imaginary problems"... see the problem with assuming it's not real?

If you live off of grants, then convincing governments to be spendy on your area of study/expertise is more important (these days) than the truth. And govt. exists to spend money on imaginary problems ;-)

 

[blazerboy30]

What if we could prove that the earth was warming (or cooling) quickly by purely natural causes, threatening a huge rise in sea levels or a bad ice-age?

Would we try to change its course or let it do its thing?

 

[Eastoff]

What if we could prove that the earth was warming (or cooling) quickly by purely natural causes, threatening a huge rise in sea levels or a bad ice-age?

Would we try to change its course or let it do its thing?

I think that second question has an interesting answer. If "we" were living about 70 years ago, I would say we change its course. Make the world fit our needs! But some of the newer environmentalists might say let the wind take us where ever it leads. I myself, assuming it was purely natural, could be in favor of both ways. But, part of me is a little insidious/devilish about population control, so that might sway my opinion.

 

[Denny Crane]

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation

...

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:

1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

 

[Minstrel]

What if we could prove that the earth was warming (or cooling) quickly by purely natural causes, threatening a huge rise in sea levels or a bad ice-age?

Would we try to change its course or let it do its thing?

At our current level of technology, I don't think there's much we could do to change its course. We could attempt to do all the things currently discussed to cut emissions in order to not speed that course along. We'd like it, ideally, to happen as far in the future as possible, because the later it happens, the better our technology will be to help us adapt to and survive the change in climate.

 

[Eastoff]

At our current level of technology, I don't think there's much we could do to change its course. We could attempt to do all the things currently discussed to cut emissions in order to not speed that course along. We'd like it, ideally, to happen as far in the future as possible, because the later it happens, the better our technology will be to help us adapt to and survive the change in climate.

there are some quick fixes actually. I can't list them off hand, but I watched a show about some crazy ideas that may or may not work.

 

[barfo]

Been a long time since we talked about climate change, but I came across this today in a liberal rag.

A U.K. investigation concluded Wednesday that researchers at a prominent climate-change institute didn't skew science to inflate evidence of man-made global warming, but it criticized them for not sharing data and, in one instance, for presenting information in a "misleading" way.

Wednesday's report, by a team of outside scientists appointed by the University of East Anglia, found that the East Anglia researchers' "rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt." It also found no "evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments" that climate change is happening and is probably caused by humans.

Two earlier reports about the East Anglia emails reached similar conclusions. One was by U.K. lawmakers; another was by a panel of academics in conjunction with the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy. Both absolved the East Anglia researchers of skewing climate science.

barfo

 

[Rhal]

Its too hot in Portland. I don't care if Global Warming is man made or not just strap a giant fan to my back and I wont care.

 

[maxiep]

Been a long time since we talked about climate change, but I came across this today in a liberal rag.



barfo

That investigation carries about as much weight as Democrats investigating Charlie Rangel for ethics violations.

 

[barfo]

That investigation carries about as much weight as Democrats investigating Charlie Rangel for ethics violations.

And I suppose you dismiss the results of the other two investigations, as well. Who would you have investigate this matter?

barfo

 

[boatsandstars]

And I suppose you dismiss the results of the other two investigations, as well. Who would you have investigate this matter?

barfo

David Brooks, his BFF from the U of Chicago, ECONOMIX RULZ

 

[maxiep]

And I suppose you dismiss the results of the other two investigations, as well. Who would you have investigate this matter?

barfo

He misrepresented data, held back information and still got his job back. This isn't politics, this is science. The quest for truth has to be paramount and you must have confidence that the people in charge share that view. He's tainted and shouldn't have been reinstated.

 

[barfo]

He misrepresented data, held back information and still got his job back. This isn't politics, this is science. The quest for truth has to be paramount and you must have confidence that the people in charge share that view. He's tainted and shouldn't have been reinstated.

And you don't have confidence in the various commissions that have reviewed this case (and come to a different conclusion than you) why, exactly? Because they disagree with you?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

And you don't have confidence in the various commissions that have reviewed this case (and come to a different conclusion than you) why, exactly? Because they disagree with you?

barfo

I don't have confidence in them because by every account I read, they were sympathic with Dr. Jones' viewpoint. And I don't have confidence in Dr. Jones. If he twisted the facts before, why should I expect him to play it straight again? IMO, any infraction should have resulted in him losing his job permanently.

 

[barfo]

I don't have confidence in them because by every account I read, they were sympathic with Dr. Jones' viewpoint. And I don't have confidence in Dr. Jones. If he twisted the facts before, why should I expect him to play it straight again? IMO, any infraction should have resulted in him losing his job permanently.

Don'tcha think it is possible they looked into the matter a little more closely than you, and have a better perspective on the subject to boot?

barfo

 

[GOBlazersGOBeavers]

BREAKING NEWS!

Skeptics will believe an expert when they agree with their preconceptions, reject expert opinion that disagrees with them.

More at 11.

 

[GOBlazersGOBeavers]

I don't have confidence in them because by every account I read, they were sympathic with Dr. Jones' viewpoint. And I don't have confidence in Dr. Jones. If he twisted the facts before, why should I expect him to play it straight again? IMO, any infraction should have resulted in him losing his job permanently.

Maybe because they didn't distort the facts?

The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," Russell said.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn