Don't believe the Gore hype Newf. There are people with billions of dollars invested in solar and wind, and they want to trash other energy sources. They use not for profit agencies as fronts. They simply make up what they can't find legitimately.
Every time someone posts scientific information on this thread that you disagree with, you start posturing and postulating and throwing out insults. First you spout stuff you've only read on the internet or heard on the CBC and then you criticize stuff others read on the internet as not being valid.
I say do your homework boy. Get reliable scientific information and stop asking others to do your work for you.
Arn
It's unfortunate you don't seem to recognize reliable scientific information at all. But hey keep on keeping on, I'm sure all your links say it's the sun and we're headed for an ice age.
Question. Why would these sites you linked be more reliable than the actual experts and scientists in their fields. You know the ones who actually do the research and use science to come up with conclusions? Remember now if you automatically discount the data that the scientists are collecting then you have to discount anything your sites use referencing that data.
I have done my research Arn, from trusted and reliable sources even, and if I expected others to do it for me I might actually believe some of the junk science you and others like to put out there as fact. Thanks for helping me research and find out even more though
(BTW you might want to research "FoS". speaking of following the money and hype.)
Again I'll trust the actual experts and scientists in the field .
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-24-2011).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Every time someone posts scientific information on this thread that you disagree with, you start posturing and postulating and throwing out insults. First you spout stuff you've only read on the internet or heard on the CBC and then you criticize stuff others read on the internet as not being valid.
Arn
Actually you couldn't be more wrong Arn, should we go back and see who's been throwing the insults?
Only read on the internet and heard on CBC, hey? Well now you seem to know me very well, where have you come up with those theories? Same as your others I suspect.
Again, if you guys want this thread to be a "Only deniers may post" thing then I suggest you start a blog instead. Afraid of someone challenging your opinion? Afraid of someone showing that you don't "know" and are not "experts"? Grow up...it's not a personal attack, I don't care one way or the other what you choose to believe, I don't even think it reflects on you as a person, however when someone tells me I'm wrong because I choose to believe something different than he/she cannot know for a fact, then they are talking out of their ass and should expect to be called on it.
Anyways enjoy believing whatever it is you like, maybe someday you'll be proven right.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-24-2011).]
Newf, I haven't seen you post any science. You can quote Al and his pals or the IPCC or NASA, but they are all implicated in Climategate. Try siting some actual science.
Newf, I haven't seen you post any science. You can quote Al and his pals or the IPCC or NASA, but they are all implicated in Climategate. Try siting some actual science.
Arn
What was that about wanting someone to do your work for you?
Here's a clue, go look at any reputable and recognized scientific organizations in the field of Climate and start reading . You know like the sites you like to use to link data showing things like artic ice extent, the organizations who actually gather and disseminate the data, not the third party "experts" which you'd rather believe.
Here ya go, now don't say I've never helped you 'by.
quote
Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability; the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2; the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels; if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment. While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS) American Geophysical Union (AGU) American Institute of Physics (AIP) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) American Meteorological Society (AMS) Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-24-2011).]
You just don't get it Newf. The IPCC report was fraudulent. They misrepresented scientists who did not subscribe to their nonsense. That list you've posted doesn't mean squat.
You just don't get it Newf. The IPCC report was fraudulent. They misrepresented scientists who did not subscribe to their nonsense. That list you've posted doesn't mean squat.
Do some research and quit quoting the scamsters.
Arn
As far as I know all questions regarding this fraudulent data has been looked into (I think no less than 4 times all exonorating the IPCC) but then when you think it's all a big conspiracy no amount of actual facts will suffice, you keep believing whatever it is you like, as will I.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-24-2011).]
Originally posted by newf: But I'm sure you can prove where he is not trusting of the NASA data sets and such.
He said NASA's data set is the WORST of them all. In HIS OWN WORDS! Jesus Christ on a crutch, what more evidence do you need?
quote
Also why does this gentleman suddenly have a respected and authoratative voice to you?
If he believes in global warming and his own crappy data set proving it, then he doesn't have much of an authoritative voice on climate. However, given that he works at the NASA center that is responsible for climate models, and he's TELLING US IN HIS OWN WORDS that their data set is the worst, and YOU believe scientists who believe in global warming, then YOU must believe him. And the last one is the point.
2. Phil Jones and the climate unit at East Anglia University was, by...East Anglia University. And...
3. Michael Mann of Penn State was investigated by...Penn State.
The fox found that the fox hadn't raided the henhouse. Wow. Big surprise there.
Get your facts straight.
Oh right I forgot, it's all a big conspiracy.
You are right it's the other ones you mentioned that were exonerated.
You may want to check your facts as well about who investigated them and what standard they were held to but I know.... no need... it's a massive cover up to make billions from windmills. Damn those wind and solar tycoons
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-25-2011).]
Originally posted by fierobear: He said NASA's data set is the WORST of them all. In HIS OWN WORDS! Jesus Christ on a crutch, what more evidence do you need?
I'm not doubting he MAY have said it but do you have a source with context or are we just to believe the Architects accusations?
OK, after the cold winter had me doubting the Global Warming Thing, this Heat Dome has be swinging back over to the other side. At my age, I won't live long enough to see if the bottom third of Florida will make for some great Tropical Reefs.Until it's too late, I guess it will all be a theory.
Oh dear lord. I think Scientists misleading people that are gullible like Newf should be put in Prison, they are not real Scientists if they make crap up to fit their hypotheses.
Of course I am also really glad people like Newf are able to make a good life for themselves, and their families, despite con artists apparantly being able to get them to buy anything.
Oh dear lord. I think Scientists misleading people that are gullible like Newf should be put in Prison, they are not real Scientists if they make crap up to fit their hypotheses.
Of course I am also really glad people like Newf are able to make a good life for themselves, and their families, despite con artists apparantly being able to get them to buy anything.
All opinion of course.
Brad
Calling me out with your passive aggressive "humour"?
Hmmmm.... what's this post an example of I wonder?
Originally posted by newf: You may want to check your facts as well about who investigated them and what standard they were held to
Dude, you must have some kind of reading comprehension problem. The guy I quoted is a NASA scientist, working at the NASA site that gathers climate data, commenting on NASA's own data.
If you are really that reading-challenged, I won't bother to reply to you.
Dude, you must have some kind of reading comprehension problem. The guy I quoted is a NASA scientist, working at the NASA site that gathers climate data, commenting on NASA's own data.
If you are really that reading-challenged, I won't bother to reply to you.
I see you missed the point again....anyways...no worries I found the actual emails WITH context.
quote
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 12:36 -0400, Rice, Doyle wrote: Jim Thank you for sending this clarification. I also received the graphs from Makiko. So is it correct to say that NASA's data is more accurate than NCDC's since it has more sources? In the media, it would be ideal to refer to one source rather than two. Traditionally we've used NCDC's data. And globally, we usually use the Hadley Centre data ... . . .
Doyle Rice 1 nf ..:t 12/17/2009 1:01 PM Doyle, Since this is a technical question and Dr. aansen is busy this afternoon, I'll answer it: . No, your statement is NOT correct; to get the US means, NCDC's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate. If that were our goal, we would proceed in the same way. Actually, whenever we report on US means in our publications, we recompute all US means using only USHCN data. My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the US means and Phil Jones' data for the global means. Our method is geared to getting the global mean and large regional means correctly enough to assess our model results. We are basically a modeling group and were forced into rudimentary analysis of global observed data in the 70's and early 80's since nobody else was doing that job at the time. Now we happily combine NCDC's and Hadley Center's data to get what we need to evaluate our model results. For that purpose, what we do is more than accurate enough. But we have no intention to compete with either of the other two organizations in what they do best. Sincerely, Reto
quote
Well, I guess that I would Say it a bit differently. Our method of analysis has features that are different than the analyses of the other groups. In some cases the differences have a substantial impact. For example, we extrapolate station measurements as much as 1200 km. This allows us to include results for the full Arctic. In 2005 this turned out to be important, as the Arctic had a large positive temperature anomaly. We thus found 2005 to be the warmest year in the record, while the British did not and initially NOAA also did not. Independent satellite IR measurements showed that our extrapolations of anomalies into the Arctic were conservative. I am very confident that our result was the correct one in that instance. Also, as we show in our 2001 paper, our urban warming correction in the U.S. differs from the NOAA correction (we have a larger adjustment, which decreases recent temperatures relative to last century). I would not claim that one is superior to the other, but the different results provide one conservative measure of uncertainty. In general it has proven very useful to have more than one group do the analysis. Also it should be noted that the different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise. You will see that we had co-authors from the other groups on our 2001 paper. And in general it is a bad idea to anoint any group as being THE authority. Science doesn't usually work best that way. Jim
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-25-2011).]
Let's see investigations were done and all have exonerated the CRU by, the British House of Commons, the independent Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, and the UEA.
Let's see investigations were done and all have exonerated the CRU by, the British House of Commons, the independent Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, and the UEA.
All friendly to global warming, I'll bet. Remember - there are billions, maybe trillions of dollars at stake.
OK, after the cold winter had me doubting the Global Warming Thing, this Heat Dome has be swinging back over to the other side. At my age, I won't live long enough to see if the bottom third of Florida will make for some great Tropical Reefs.Until it's too late, I guess it will all be a theory.
As if I didn't already assume you got your opinions from people like Glenn Beck now you show me that you have to read his book to even try and discuss something. Easy to see you use the same tactics...no surprise....he was so effective at it that even Fox canned him.
Funny thing is if one used his way of arguing they could simply take the pic of him from the cover of that book, put it on a chalkboard and call him a Nazi as he has a Nazi uniform on. That's about as deep as most of his arguements and "connections" manage to get.
Oh and BTW I wrote Dr. Ruedy yesterday regarding the Forbes article and he replied today. Thanks so much for his email address
quote
Hi Barry,
This refers to an old incident that is described on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/item "Aug.7 2007". The "confession" is simply part of our thorough analysis of the nature and impact of a programming error, an error that we openly admitted and corrected as soon as we became aware of it.
Reto Ruedy
So feel free to contact him with your theories and arguements and see what he says.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-26-2011).]
As if I didn't already assume you got your opinions from people like Glenn Beck now you show me that you have to read his book to even try and discuss something. Easy to see you use the same tactics...no surprise....he was so effective at it that even Fox canned him.
He wasn't canned, he left.
quote
Funny thing is if one used his way of arguing they could simply take the pic of him from the cover of that book, put it on a chalkboard and call him a Nazi as he has a Nazi uniform on. That's about as deep as most of his arguements and "connections" manage to get.
So feel free to contact him with your theories and arguements and see what he says.
I would expect him to do what all warmists would do - cover their ass. Some of them have gotten caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and they're saying "we're innocent". You honestly expected anything else, newf? You're more gullible than I imagined.
I would expect him to do what all warmists would do - cover their ass. Some of them have gotten caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and they're saying "we're innocent". You honestly expected anything else, newf? You're more gullible than I imagined.
Same old same old...I'll take that as a no then...can't say I'm surprised.
Same old same old...I'll take that as a no then...can't say I'm surprised.
Bullshit, newf.
What the hell did you expect him to say? Admit that their data is flawed, but we should go ahead and tax CO2 anyway? Good GAWD, you're hopelessly naive. Is that just you, or is it a Canadian thing?
What the hell did you expect him to say? Admit that their data is flawed, but we should go ahead and tax CO2 anyway? Good GAWD, you're hopelessly naive. Is that just you, or is it a Canadian thing?
I didn't expect anything but you were the one claiming he said something "in his own words" and so on, however a quick email and the context shows that not to be the case. Not sure what he has to do with any taxes as I highly doubt he makes any policy decisions.
As for your last question...haha lame attempt. Seriously that's your best shot? Maybe you should get a new book.
Originally posted by newf: I didn't expect anything but you were the one claiming he said something "in his own words" and so on, however a quick email and the context shows that not to be the case.
So it is impossible he could be LYING?
quote
Not sure what he has to do with any taxes as I highly doubt he makes any policy decisions.
Wow, you really don't get it, do you? When he presents science that the politicians use to make policy, then YES. What the hell do you think "Cap and Tax" and similar stuff is based on?
quote
As for your last question...haha lame attempt. Seriously that's your best shot? Maybe you should get a new book.
You still didn't answer the question. Have you read the book?
Originally posted by fierobear: So it is impossible he could be LYING?
It's possible anyone COULD be lying, however you linked an article that took his words out of context and to something that he has alrready answered. Again I'll trust the science over the speculation by a Architect denier trying to sell books. Also I believe the data from NASA is open for review if you'd like to point out the "lying".
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Wow, you really don't get it, do you? When he presents science that the politicians use to make policy, then YES. What the hell do you think "Cap and Tax" and similar stuff is based on?
Get what now? I don't see where Dr. Ruedy pushing for cap and trade, do you? Most scientists just present facts, they may have opinions as to what should be done, but that's more for the policy makers not the researchers. I guess when you think everything is a conspiracy everyone is always guilty of something.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
You still didn't answer the question. Have you read the book?
I assumed it was rhetorical but no I have not read Glenn Becks book nor would I support him by buying any product he produces. I never commented on the contents of his "book" just what I have seen of him, the cover of said book, and his arguing "style". Are we going to deflect by discussing Beck now?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-27-2011).]
Originally posted by newf: It's possible anyone COULD be lying, however you linked an article that took his words out of context and to something that he has alrready answered. Again I'll trust the science over the speculation by a Architect denier trying to sell books. Also I believe the data from NASA is open for review if you'd like to point out the "lying".
Then you believe wrongly. That's one of the issues I was trying to get to. Skeptical scientists have asked for their data, the raw data, and have been REFUSED. Normally in science, you present all your data so it can be checked. Many of the warmists refuse, including those at NASA GISS, Michael Mann at Penn State (the "hockey stick" author), Phil Jones from CRU and others. They have ALL resisted SCIENTIFIC requests for their raw data. Many have resisted FOIA requests.
So, what are they hiding?
quote
I assumed it was rhetorical but no I have not read Glenn Becks book nor would I support him by buying any product he produces. I never commented on the contents of his "book" just what I have seen of him, the cover of said book, and his arguing "style". Are we going to deflect by discussing Beck now?
You haven't read his book, but you know it's contents? That means you have no authority to make any pronouncements about it's contents. I HAVE read it, cover to cover.
Then you believe wrongly. That's one of the issues I was trying to get to. Skeptical scientists have asked for their data, the raw data, and have been REFUSED. Normally in science, you present all your data so it can be checked. Many of the warmists refuse, including those at NASA GISS, Michael Mann at Penn State (the "hockey stick" author), Phil Jones from CRU and others. They have ALL resisted SCIENTIFIC requests for their raw data. Many have resisted FOIA requests.
So, what are they hiding?
Proof please. Not just some accusation by a denier. You did actually look at where NASA publishes their data and methods, correct?
