http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chem...ch_468x538.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
A very sandy consensus.
Printable View
http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chem...ch_468x538.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
A very sandy consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Beskar could not be more correct. Frags, you seem to be confusing Washington Times with Washington Post. The latter is a very old, highly respected newspaper with a slight right lean. The former is a far-right upstart, whose articles at times approach yellow journalism and racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Yes and it's about the former head of the IPCC admitting there is no global warming and manipulation of data, you know, the IPCC. UN.
Heh, this thread should be a sticky by now. Sorta like the climate change deniers HQ. I tell you, Frags, if the climate-change proponents were as persistent and dedicated as you are, we would be living in a world of global warming sceptics. Too bad you are on the other side.
Whoops! I admit that I fell for that :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
pick one you like
I like you, Frags. Where does that put me?
Don't fight it
oh the irony, if even the IPCC admits it, not going to convince people who are absolutely terrified of CO2, and the Green Church will keep calling for prayer, but the world is waking up from this indoctrination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
lol http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-a...energy-plants/
and then you read this http://www.soul-online.co.uk/news.html
isn't the green khmer efficient
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ony/ohohoh.jpg
the institute of physics submission to the Parliament Science & Technology Select Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ata/uc3902.htm
The science is settled, they deserve our trust. Those words may come to haunt the less critical.Quote:
Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.
The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.
The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.
12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
How independent are the other two international data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.
The Institute of Physics
February 2010
Hmmm, Putin does all but scream that he denies the global warming. Perhaps we should listen to him :yes:.
not sure what this is adding to the debate, but i'll go with it...............Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
On the myth of rising sea-levels
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi.../33-37_725.pdf
So we're citing La Rouche now? LOL
We have more gates then gardens by now, so yeah I kinda am, with each revelation the scale of the deception becomes ever more epic. I know you will remain absolutely terrified of CO2 anyway, but inquisitive minds should know by now that they have been scammed, or at least have doubts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Ah more gate http://www.australianclimatemadness....ontent=Twitter
However, the latest research, just published in the Nature Geoscience journal, paints a very different picture.
It suggests the rise in cyclone frequency since 1995 was part of a natural cycle and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.
oh noes
Glad we can agree on one thing. How does it feel to have Putin on yours side? :tongue::laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sorry Frags, but there is no justification for citing La Rouche. If you have to resort to posting his views, then you have already lost the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
EDIT: But wait, the La Rouche supporters have something to say!!:
https://img28.imageshack.us/img28/70...supporters.jpg
Dammit, they got me there :shame:
EDIT2: An here is the special Internet edition:
https://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8273/winj.png
Sorry Frags, but there is no justification for citing La Rouche. If you have to resort to posting his views, then you have already lost the debate.
What does it matter who hosts the interview.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Swe- den. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Com- mission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR.
Dr. Mörner was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research’s (INQUA) Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003). Its research proved that the catastrophic predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on computer models of the effects of global warming, are “nonsense.”
What does it matter when a poster closes his eyes on reality? The interviewer matters no less than the interviewee. I mean, you post good arguments, Frags, but this one was not one of those :shrug: Best to leave this at this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
i'm ok with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
i don't like the man.
but what does that have to do with it?
Nah, just litmus-testing your outlooks. Don't worry about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I dont really believe all the hype about global Warming. slash that, i think its bull and gore used images fromt he day after tommorow in his famed movie. (nobel peace prize my *** that doesnt even make sense)
but for the record all this snow on the east coast that the right is spouting on about and the left has twisted to support global warming (imagine that!) is because of the flipping el nino. thats why its snowing in bloody texas and there was no snow in vancouver.
This irks me the most. People need to realise they are not professionals in every field of science. People look for evidence which re-affirms their beleifs. People ignore what does not. People see notable, but singular events and interpret them as a trend. People are not scientists. We cannot debate climate change in scientific terms. Fudging data is a time-honed occupation. Instead, the best we can do is examine the tactics of each side and decide who is more trustworthy. This goes for both sides, before you start gloating, Frags :tongue:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
But that will never happen my dear cicero because the plebs are so easily swayed by stories of apocalypse.Quote:
This irks me the most. People need to realise they are not professionals in every field of science. People look for evidence which re-affirms their beleifs. People ignore what does not. People see notable, but singular events and interpret them as a trend. People are not scientists. We cannot debate climate change in scientific terms. Fudging data is a time-honed occupation. Instead, the best we can do is examine the tactics of each side and decide who is more trustworthy. This goes for both sides, before you start gloating, Frags
we can get evidence in 20000 years i suppose.
Personally im of the camp that the earth goes through natural phases and humanity is far too self obsessed if we believe Mother Earth can't handle us.
There, my friend, you are making a big mistake. Fine, I can swallow that climate change is a myth. But we are doing very well in destroying this planet. Oh yes. Destroying has always been easy. If as it seems, the early humans had a significant role in the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and if they could do it, we could do the same with hundred times the ease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
let me guess guns germsn and steel by jared diamond.Quote:
There, my friend, you are making a big mistake. Fine, I can swallow that climate change is a myth. But we are doing very well in destroying this planet. Oh yes. Destroying has always been easy. If as it seems, the early humans had a significant role in the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and if they could do it, we could do the same with hundred times the ease.
yeah i know and we ARE wrecking like rainforests, and water supply, and driving certain species to extinction. But some things i just dont believe we have that much power over. global warming being an issue.
No, my HS AP history teacher recommended it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Sorry, but the list goes on forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
It just a site that hosts the interview, doesn't change what the good man saysQuote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
British parliament gets its act together at long last:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03...t_climategate/
timber