just chuckling
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 09:07 AM CST

Global Warming With the Lid Off
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

Climategate?

This issue is not as clean cut as some want to believe.

just saying...

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 09:23 AM CST

More here with analysis of these global warming scientist emails and documents FROM THE EAST ANGLIA ARCHIVES as well as additional links

just saying...

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 09:34 AM CST

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 09:44 AM CST

The part that shocks.... SHOCKS! ....me is that government sanctioned/funded scientists would turn the full power of their entitled position on marginalizing, discrediting and otherwise denigrating fellow scientists who happened to be principled skeptics. I imagine that many of those thus targeted have been living/working in straitened circumstances as a result of the vindictive, tribal pettiness of their 'fellow researchers'.

It's almost enough to shake one's firm belief in the healing, benevolent power of government .

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 11:32 AM CST

Can we stop polluting our environment?

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 11:43 AM CST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/climate-denial-strategy

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:16 PM CST

Quote by: Dadai.2 EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

And out come the hordes of the informed quoters-out-of-context.....

The Wash Post writes:

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' "

Note that the WP has no real argument here: they simply call it "lame". Well, that's lame. The scientific literature is full of tricks, meaning shortcuts in thinking or computing. I googled for the only one that I knew of the l2 lifting trick. I challenge you to find anything nefarious here.

Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline."

I can prove anything if I'm allowed to take 4 words completely out of context. Does any of the people attacking this quote understand what it is about at all? No? So then what gives you such confidence that something bad is going on. Here, this the scientific explanation by someone who does know what is going on:

As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Did you understand that? No? Then how can you dismiss it, and dismiss the notion that "hiding" did not imply anything nefarious but simply meant "removing data that is known to be completely contrary to all other measurements".

It's all word games. The only relevant fact here is that the climate "skeptics" have zero science on their side. Zero. They can only quote stuff out of context that they completely fail to understand. Show me something with a degree in climate science (or something related) who says "Ah. This shows that my papers [citations....
were right all along and that there is no global warming."

Let me repeat that: there is no science behind the climate denial. Just word games.

Victor.

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:18 PM CST

I found a nice and short quote:

" if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it."

Victor.

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:20 PM CST

...Hello & great to see you all ! Just popping in for a bit..we're OK over here on this side of the puddle , well could've been better but it could've been worse too

Humbled...

Lena

Re:Just saying
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:24 PM CST

Global Warming In Context:

The Sun:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/4th/sunstmay.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3238961.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321

Venus, Mars & Jupiter:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/1999/65.html
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1997/15/image/b
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/21_jupiter.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-04-22-jupiter-spots-going_x.htm

Watch the sky...it doesn’t lie (unlike unscrupulous politicians jockeying for power, and Hollywood movie moguls out to scare up a buck at the expense of truth and sanity)!

---Hope these links are still active. I originally posted these over a year ago.

Although I think asking folks to reconsider their views on this issue will meet with much the same response that asking folks to rationally rethink their religion, or admit to the inherent limitations of the scientific method will.

Still...It's a good deal of fun to watch the fur fly when swollen and tender egos discover their views are being challenged with evidence yet again. (And by evidence I DON'T mean blockbuster movies! Heh-heh...) Nuff said!

Be well all!