Quote: Not really...they were reviewed in house and by organizations that had ties, so it was far from an independent review. There may not be any evidence of wrong doing but many feel there was a huge opportunity for them to cover up anything that would have been embarrassing.
Reviewed in house? Michael Mann works at University of Virginia. He's been reviewed by Penn state, a parliamentary committee in England as well as an independent cadre of his peers. They were scientists, yes, but not climate scientists. This is starting to border on conspiracy theory FA.
Quote: There has been a huge list of people who have come out and said they were discriminated against in peer review and had funding pulled when their data didn't support Man Made Global Warming. That is far from Scientific Method definition that I am use to.
Well, the only thing i could say is that their proposed methods weren't up to snuff or thought to advance the understanding of this scientific field. If your methods are good, if your potential for impact is high, you'll get funded.
Quote: There has been a huge list of people who have come out and said they were discriminated against in peer review and had funding pulled when their data didn't support Man Made Global Warming. That is far from Scientific Method definition that I am use to.
Well, the only thing i could say is that their proposed methods weren't up to snuff or thought to advance the understanding of this scientific field. If your methods are good, if your potential for impact is high, you'll get funded.
From my link on page 1
Quote: And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and the results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way. Remember the United Nations had formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the late 1980's with the mission of accessing and countering manmade climate change. The UN had established this global bureaucracy on climate change. It had become the "world series" or "Olympics" for Climatologists and Meteorologists and scientists in related fields. You had to strive to be accepted, invited to present and review papers and travel to international meetings of the committee. Otherwise you were a nobody in your field.
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like-minded PhD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question. There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them and brushed their studies aside.
Quote:
Quote: Not really...they were reviewed in house and by organizations that had ties, so it was far from an independent review. There may not be any evidence of wrong doing but many feel there was a huge opportunity for them to cover up anything that would have been embarrassing.
Reviewed in house? Michael Mann works at University of Virginia. He's been reviewed by Penn state, a parliamentary committee in England as well as an independent cadre of his peers. They were scientists, yes, but not climate scientists. This is starting to border on conspiracy theory FA.
And another from my link pertaining to a gentleman named Michael Mann.
Quote: In the week since my article "Global Warming is the Greatest Scam in History" was posted, I have received hundreds of emails. Most have been supportive and thanked me for my statement. A few have been very hostile. And, many of them ask for the scientific evidence that supports my statements. For them I am posting a series of briefs debunking the science behind the global warming frenzy. This is the first one.
The claim that Earth is in the grips of runaway Global Warming took off with this chart. It was produced by Climatologist Michael Mann and colleagues in 1999. His paper portrayed the climate of Earth as stable for 1,000 years before the activities of mankind caused temperatures to skyrocket. The chart just didn’t ring true with me. I was more used to the chart below.
This chart includes the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age, both of which have been documented by historians and widely accepted by climatologists. Remember, it was during the Medieval Warm period that the Vikings settled Greenland and established successful farms. Strong support for this warm period worldwide can be found on the CO2 Science site. Then came the Little Ice Age during which the Vikings had to abandon Greenland. Which chart is right? This is very important because Mann’s "hockey stick" chart has been the absolute bedrock of the global warming frenzy. It was a primary exhibit and cornerstone of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. A debate about Mann’s work has raged in the scientific community as other climate scientists take strong exception to his claims.
I have waded through the research papers and blog exchanges by scientists on both sides. In the end, mathematician Steven McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have proven to my satisfaction that the Mann Hockey Stick chart is not a valid display of long-term global temperatures. A congressional group formed a committee of scientists to settle the issue. Here are excerpts from their report:
COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION
"This committee has reviewed the work of both articles (Mann’s research paper and McIntyre and McKitrick’s counter arguments), as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
In general, we found Mann’s articles to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of them to be valid and compelling. The controversy surrounding Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a "hockey stick" shape. The experts on this committee were Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University)."
My conclusion is that the cornerstone exhibit of the Global Warming proponents is bad science. It is not correct.There has not been an unprecedented rise in global temperatures in the last thirty years.
You will need to click on the link to see the graphs and other related source material. It's a PDF so I can't post them.
This is the way I have come to view the world of science...
We have true science, promotional science, pseudo-science, and dispute science. On top of this we have to deal with credible quackery and anecdotal mockery....
In an ideal world we would only have true science, which looks for an outcome without bias. Rarely does that occur.
We have promotional science, which may have bias as the intended outcome is known before the experiment begins. Corporations that sell product are heavily involved in promotional science. Sometimes it is legitimate, sometimes it is not.
We have pseudo-science which is the misapplication of fact to support a desired outcome. This follows a twisted logic pattern... If then... If then....
Dispute science is targeted to disprove true science.
On top of everything, we have what I call credible quackery, simply put it is gaining the endorsement of someone to advocate your position based on their position in the world.
And anecdotal mockery is how this thread began.... If it is snowing in Britian.... then global warming can't be true. We hear this crap every year and it has nothing to do with the discussion.
I see a lot of parallels in history, time generally resolves the truth, one of the biggest battles was when the smoking was declared to have negative health effects in the mid sixties, which flew into the face against the cigarette companies, You can do a image search on cigarette advertising sometime for a perspective.
I will be the first to state that these are different subjects, but we should consider the sources when making judgments. Sometimes it is appropriate to state that the information has bias, other times it is not. True science will hold up against a bias claim.
True science has few friends and many enemies in the political arena.
Quote: All I can say is that anyone who attempts to have a discussion about global warming using local weather conditions is a complete idiot.
It is pretty obvious that real science has disappeared from the American culture, this thread is proof of it.
Is that what you said in the days and months following Katrina when every scientist was on CNN and MSNBC and Fox News stating how this was the new norm? Stating how this one localized weather event was proof positive that the global climate was changing and had become so much more violent and that we might as well get used to it? That we might as well figure out a way to deal with Katrina like events because "global warming" was going to make them a regular part of our lives so we should just figure out how to handle it?
Did you mock and ridicule all of those knee-jerk scientists who were using the fear created by Katrina as a means of driving their point home that global warming was going to kill us all?
I believe we are going on year 6 and we haven't had a weather event even close to that since... I'm still waiting for hundreds of scientists to issue the "oops, my bad"...
Perhaps, and this is just a theory of mine... if the global warming advocates would stop being so knee jerk and would stop running around doing their best chicken little impersonation...... stating how every little thing is going to be the end of it all for mankind... (and I'm not necessarily talking about the true scientists themselves, I'm talking about the global warming mouthpieces, the Al Gores and the Hollywood Celebs etc) ... but perhaps if they would STFU, then the actual science of climate change wouldn't get such a violent backlash from everybody else... Perhaps if John Kerry wouldn't show up on his yacht to lecture me about energy usage.. and the Kennedy's wouldn't fly on their private planes to lecture me about burning fossil fuels... and perhaps if John Edwards didn't issue a statement about reducing energy usage from the west wing of his 24,000 square foot home... and if any number of Hollywood Celebs wouldn't get out of a limo and tell me why I should drive a Prius.... perhaps if some of these things didn't happen, it might be a little easier to take their climate discussion a little more seriously.... See, it's not the scientists that make global warming so hard to take seriously, it's the idiots that endorse them..... just a theory.
Quote: And anecdotal mockery is how this thread began.... If it is snowing in Britian.... then global warming can't be true. We hear this crap every year and it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Um, no ... this thread began, because some years ago, some quack said: "Due to global warming, the UK will never see snow again" ... this thread was just pointing out that quackery.
Like DC said ... most of these "local weather" arguments are just throwing it back at those same "scientists" that were telling us that global warming was going to cause all these localized weather events.
Quote: We have promotional science, which may have bias as the intended outcome is known before the experiment begins. Corporations that sell product are heavily involved in promotional science. Sometimes it is legitimate, sometimes it is not.
What you didn't mention is that government is also heavily involved in promotional science, as guys that get elected want to run on certain scare tactics that they can "solve" if elected.
The big problem I have with "global warming" is the "man-made" part. They've taken two seperate, yet somewhat provable theories ... the overall average planet temperature has risen slightly; and man can create a temperature increase on a small level ... and translated it to: man must be creating global warming! It's the equivilent of me taking a leak into lake erie, and saying I caused the temperature of the lake to go up.
And everything trying to "scientifically" tie these two together, seems to go back to the "promotional science" or "psuedo science" you were talking about. Most of which centers around computer models ... "Okay, we programmed this to show exactly what we want if global warming were true" ... "Oh, it didn't work for this year? Well we threw a few if-then's in there and now it works! ... now where's that grant check?"
Quote: Actually, no, a single event does not make trend.
Anyone who has been involved with science should understand that.
Then a lot of people claiming to be scientists should be ashamed of themselves because evidently they DO NOT understand that. According to them we were going to have 3 or 4 Katrina's every year for the rest of our lives if we all didn't start driving hybrid cars and sign on to every international treaty we could find no matter how much damage it would do to our current economy...
The only thing that people can agree upon is that the percentage of CO2 in the air has increased from 0.0280 percent to 0.0380 percent in the past 150 years.
Does it mean the end of the world?
One person looks at the data and and says... that's a 35 percent increase and prepares for the end of days.
Another looks at it and says it is a 0.01 percent change, and moves on.
Is one right or wrong, no.
What we do know, is that we have the ability to affect the world through our activity. We can take a look at the clean air act and clean water act and be assured that we did the right thing in the 70's. We can take a look at the ban on CFC's and realize that the ozone hole has closed.
The analogy to Lake Erie has been proven. We know that when enough people take a leak in Lake Erie, and we do nothing, it does change. But the lake is can recover as well, even thought the underlying chemistry of change (Nitrogen and Phosphours) are small in percentages, significantly smaller than the increase in CO2.
Too many people in too small of a space requires enviornmental diligence to assure that we don't mess things up too badly. One persons environmental activism is another stewardship.
There is only one likely explanation for the increase in CO2, and that is man.
But that is not the same as man is responsible for global warming because it has not been demonstrated that the increase in CO2 has resulted in or environmental changes / temperature increases that are statiscally significant. What appears to be a change, has not been proven to be statiscally significant, at least from what I have seen.
The discussion point on both sides are no longer science based, the points are political, and you cannot have a scientific discussion in a political environment. Some of the science is promotional, in this case by governments, which is supposed to be non-biased.
However, when a discussion point begins with you are wrong.... we are not in a scientific discussion we are in a political debate based on anecdotal mockery.
It is that "if...then" discussion point that is the point of contention.
The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
