Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2011 - 01:22am PT
|
With mesquite flavouring, one assumes. Or should that be mousequite?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2011 - 01:25am PT
|
For lemmings the preferred flavoring would undoubtedly be mosquito.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2011 - 11:56am PT
|
Odd story about the Lemmings in that it ignores the obvious questions, to focus on only one aspect, though a very interesting aspect. If large new areas are turning green where the lemmings roam free, does that mean the numbers of Lemmings in those areas are increasing? If Lemming numbers are increasing, is that increase correlated with temperature increases?
The story focuses exclusively on the very interesting finding that where the Lemmings are excluded, Lichens and such remain the dominant vegetation rather than grasses. But the obvious question is: Why is this conversion happening now? Why did it not happen long ago?
The obvious answer which could be right or wrong but which needs to be addressed, is that temperature increases are encouraging the growth of both grasses and Lemmings. Lemmings eat whatever is available, including lichens. With warmer temperatures the grasses grow in faster than the lichens, so the lichens get replaced. More grass means more lemmings who eat more remaining lichens as well as more grass.
I wonder if the story reflects the researches views or the reporters views?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2011 - 10:13pm PT
|
fuking hack bw
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2011 - 09:31am PT
|
an accused rapist exposes national security emails, etc., that result in people dying and he's a hero
i offer a link to a source that exposes emails between global warming enthusiasts that indicate they have manipulated their data, manipulated the peer review process that is the cornerstone of valid scientific research, and aggressively worked to silence their skeptics, and i'm a "hack"
you have quite an impressive moral compass, dirt
here's an interesting thought: "If you can’t imagine conditions under which [a theory] might be controverted, then you’re no longer doing science...In politics, the notion that climate change can’t be falsified—everything only serves to confirm it, nothing imaginable can contradict it—has been a marvelous boon. In science, the fact that climate change can’t be falsified seems to prove, mostly, that climate change isn’t science: There’s no way to test for it, no way to quantify it, and no way to demonstrate it."
it's a long essay: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/unchanging-science_609223.html
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2011 - 09:49am PT
|
you have quite an impressive moral compass, dirt
.......vs you who loves all the rights a society has to offer yet wants none of the basic responsibilities. "God" help the kids you teach.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2011 - 11:55am PT
|
Unusually cold temps greet Global Warming Conference members in Durban
South Africa for another lavish seaside get together on how to scam money from the people of the world. '
'Hey its supposed to be almost summer down here in the southern hemisphere' one member complained.
-------------------------
It would appear that no amount of the evidence of fraud is sufficient to
convince them they have either participated or been taken in by the
greatest hoax of the modern era.
--------------------------
At what point will it finally occur to the pea-brained legion of
journalists, academics, alleged scientists, United Nations propagandists,
and others still blathering about “global warming” and “climate change”
that there is no global warming and that the climate has been changing for
the past 4.5 billion years on planet Earth?
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2011 - 09:00am PT
|
who has time to read all those emails? fortunately, somebody does...some highlights:
“It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.”
“I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”
“The figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”
“I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!”
“basic problem is that all of the models are wrong.”
“doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”
“very difficult to make the Medieval Warming Period go away.”
”I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”
“climate change is extremely complicated, BUT to accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.”
“the important thing is to make sure they’re losing the PR battle.”
“Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions — bad politics — to one about the value of a stable climate — much better politics. . . . the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible.”
“been talking with folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre . . . perhaps the same needs to be done with this Kennan guy . . . I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them.”
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”
“Phil, thanks for your thoughts — guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.”
"I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP [Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol] in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats."
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get — and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
yes, yes, i understand the lack of context so, it's now your turn to provide the exculpatory context
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2011 - 09:18am PT
|
Our turn?
Why can't you be honest about the context in the first place?
You miserable little molish hack.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2011 - 12:29pm PT
|
From Ed:
this is a policy question, and the question has to do with the ability to mitigate the consequences of climate change, to the best of our ability to predict both the magnitude and those consequences. Our economy could be crippled in the future because of climate change. Since it is caused by humans, and the US is the largest consumer, per capita, of energy in the world, our use will be scrutinized...
Ed, not even close, at least according to the statistics I found in a 30 second search. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
If you've got other data, let's see it.
In light of the frequent errors of the so-called "scientists," can you understand why others have some concerns about fundamentally restructuring the economy based on their (often biased and self-interested) speculations?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2011 - 02:31pm PT
|
"the answer here is that by the standards of climate science the skeptics and alternative theories do not warrant being published. Their science doesn't meet those standards."
if this is true, ed, then why did mann, et al., conspire (as shown in the first wave of emails) to keep such research out of the journals? they even suggested changing the peer review process specifically to keep alternative research out of print...why do you need a new review process if, as you contend, the research isn't worthy of publication?
why the secrecy? why the resistance to foia requests?
aren't you at least concerned about the political machinations? remember, the truth has no agenda
are you concerned that the "invesitgations" into these emails were conducted by the institutions who employ these scientists? would you be satisfied with a penn state investigation into sandusky's alleged child molesting? then why are you satisfied with a penn state investigation into mann's alleged lack of ethics?
"What is the motive for the alleged misbehavior of the scientists in this case?"
money, ed, money!!! OUR MONEY!!!
"Given that all this is open to viewing"
then why did someone have to hack into the email accounts? and what's the difference between foia (the hacker's pseudonym) and julian assange? why do libs villify the former and celebrate the latter?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2011 - 02:42pm PT
|
November 28, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Scientists Behaving Badly
More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming
Global-warming skeptics spend much of their time knocking down the fatuous warmist claim that the science is settled. According to the warmists, this singular piece of settled science is attested to by hundreds or thousands of highly credentialed scientists. In truth, virtually the entire warmist edifice is built around a small, tightly knit coterie of persons (one hesitates to refer to folks with so little respect for the scientific method as scientists) willing to falsify data and manipulate findings; or, to put it bluntly, to lie in order to push a political agenda not supported by empirical evidence. This is what made the original release of the Climategate e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia so valuable. They clearly identified the politicized core of climate watchers who were driving the entire warmist agenda. Following in their footsteps are all the other scientists who built their own research on top of the fraudulent data produced by the warmist core.
Last week over 5,000 new e-mails, already dubbed Climategate 2, were released. Anyone still desiring to contest the assertion that only a few persons controlled the entire warmist agenda will be brought up short by this note from one warmist protesting that his opinions were not getting the hearing they deserved: “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” Over the years this core group, led by Phil Jones at East Anglia and Michael Mann at Penn State, became so close that even those inclined toward more honest appraisals of the state of climate science were hesitant to rock the boat. As one warm-monger states: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.” Silly me, how many years have I wasted believing that the very point of science was to pursue the truth in the face of all obstacles. On the basis of this evidence the scientific method must be rewritten so as to state: “Science must be as objective as possible, unless it offends your friends.”
Unfortunately, from the very beginning, the core group at the heart of Climategate had no interest in “scientific truth.” As one states: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” In other words, let’s decide on a conclusion and then use only evidence that proves that point, discarding everything else. One scientist who seems to have been slightly troubled by these methods wrote: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” In another note to Phil Jones, this same scientist complained: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”
Of course, nothing of the sort was done. As one e-mail states: “The figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].” Too bad these so-called scientists felt they could tell the truth only to one another and not the public at large. Some of the other truths they shared only with one another are astounding. For instance, one writes: “I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!” So, despite having no confidence in any of the models the IPCC was using in its reports, this scientist was ready to support the IPCC findings to the hilt. And why didn’t he believe the models? Easy: They were designed to tell the big lie. For example, when confronted with the problem that if all the data were included, the warming disappeared, Phil Jones turned to a novel method: He used only “[time] periods that showed warming.”
At one point, Jones admits that the “basic problem is that all of the models are wrong.” Of course, there is a simple reason for this. When the models do not show what the warmists want them to show, they simply apply “some tuning.” One scientist was worried enough about this “tuning” to write that he “doubt[ed] the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.” In this case, “tuning” means changing the model until it tells you what you want it to. When it became impossible to torture the models any further without making their uselessness apparent to all, the warmists resorted to changing the data.
The most efficient method of corrupting the models was to use data only from time periods when there was warming and discard others, as Jones admits to doing. This method helped one scientist reduce the cooling in the northern hemisphere between 1940 and 1970, so that he did not have to make up an excuse blaming it on sulphates, which could not be proven. Another complains that no matter how much he fiddles with the data, it is “very difficult to make the Medieval Warming Period go away.” Solving this problem in the modern era was much easier: The warmists merely changed the temperature readings for much of the 20th century and threw away the original data.
Why? One e-mail clearly explains what was at stake: ”I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.” In other words, all the scientific lying was a result of scientists trying to give their political masters a major issue they could use to control people’s lives and justify wasting trillions of dollars. Success, as one warmist stated, rested on somehow convincing the public that “limate change is extremely complicated, BUT to accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.” In other words, climate science is too complex for the simpleton voters, who must be made to believe that unless we wreck the global economy the planet will bake. As Michael Mann says in one e-mail: “the important thing is to make sure they’re losing the PR battle.” Moving even further away from their original calling as scientists, the warmists spend considerable time discussing the tactics of convincing the masses that global warming should be a major concern. For instance, one states: “Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions — bad politics — to one about the value of a stable climate — much better politics. . . . the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible.”
To win the public debate nothing was out of bounds. For instance, Mann, incensed that some skeptics had trashed his work, wrote to Jones, saying he had “been talking with folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre . . . perhaps the same needs to be done with this Kennan guy . . . I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them.” Steve McIntyre and Doug Kennan are well-known skeptics. In fact, McIntyre’s work was crucial in proving that Mann’s infamous “hockey stick graph” — the heart of the United Nations’ IPCC-3 report — was a fraud. Rather than contest McIntyre’s findings with evidence and data, Mann decided that his best alternative was to smear his challenger’s reputation. Skeptics always had to be on the watch for Mann’s spiteful attacks. But what is interesting is that many of his fellow warmists had a low opinion of his work. Despite this, they were slow to criticize Mann — partly because they did not want to give the skeptics any more ammunition, but also because they were afraid of him. As one warmist wrote to Jones, Mann was a “serious enemy” and “vindictive.”
Worried that their e-mail discussions might turn a spotlight on their fraud, Jones and others were constantly advising one another on how to hide the evidence. For instance, Jones once sent out an e-mail stating: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.” To which one warmist replied: “Phil, thanks for your thoughts — guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.”
Still, none of this deception would be possible without the active collusion of much of the global press, which has swallowed the warmist agenda hook, line, and sinker. As one BBC journalist wrote to Phil Jones after running a piece slightly skeptical of the warmist position:
I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP [Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol] in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
What is even more troubling is what appears to be the active collusion of government agencies charged with looking out for the public welfare. In one Jones e-mail, he discusses hiding data, making it clear that the U.S. Department of Energy was an active participant in his fraud: “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get — and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” I hope someone in Congress is interested in why the Department of Energy was involved in hiding climate data. One might assume that it would be harder to make an investment in Solyndra if the global-warming threat was proven a fraud.
My favorite quote of all those uncovered was from the climate criminal who asked his colleagues what would happen to them if it was discovered that climate change was “mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation,” as much of the evidence shows. He answers his own question: “They’ll kill us probably.”
— Jim Lacey is professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College. He is the author of the recently released The First Clash and Keep from All Thoughtful Men. The opinions presented here are entirely his own and do not represent those of the Department of Defense or any of its members.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 28, 2011 - 03:20pm PT
|
^^^^^^
In truth, virtually the entire warmist edifice is built around a small, tightly knit coterie of persons (one hesitates to refer to folks with so little respect for the scientific method as scientists)
bookworm eats BS breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2011 - 03:46pm PT
|
oh, and it seems we top that list in terms of per capita by region... by a factor of two... maybe it depends on how you gerrymander the list? But you wouldn't have an "bias" or "self-interest" here either, would you?
Maybe you should have taken a minute in your search...
No Ed, nothing depends on "gerrymandering." You made an assertion which I disproved (based on the data that I found, which you don't dispute).
Maybe you should just admit you're wrong once in a while instead of trying to weasel (and flailing--"gerrymandering" has nothing to do with your assertion or my refutation of it).
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2011 - 04:19pm PT
|
Atmospheric Solar Heat Amplifier Discovered
Previously, the direct impact of increased irradiance on global average
temperature has been estimated at around 0.25°C last century—a three fold
amplifying effect would raise that to 0.75°C.
This leaves practically no warming effect for CO2 to account for and
renders the whole anthropogenic global warming argument moot.
In other words, if the atmospheric solar amplifier theory is correct
anthropogenic global warming is wrong, a useless theory describing a
nonexistent phenomenon. It seems like poetic justice
that a modeling experiment may point the way to discrediting global warming
once and for all.
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2011 - 08:00pm PT
|
Will the EU become an international no-fly zone Jan 1 2012 ?
Europe's CO2 Airline Armageddon
11/01/2011
Starting on January 1, 2012, airlines flying to and from airports in the
European Union (EU) will be forced into an emissions trading system that
attempts to regulate CO2.
In essence, the new regulation imposes a carbon tax on jet fuel and
taxing fuel used on international flights would violate International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules.
No matter if the jet filled up in Tokyo when it arrives in the EU it'll have to pay the new carbon tax for all the fuel burned in route!!!
India vows to... ..retaliate if the European Commission does not step
back from its plans. “If they don’t call it off, we will retaliate,”
Prashant Sukul, joint secretary of India’s Ministry of Civil Aviation,
told Aviation Week. In fact, the EU action could trigger an international
trade war that could bring the global air transport system crashing down.
“People (in other countries) have ideas about retaliatory measures, and
they will act their way,” Sukul said. “If Russia doubles the overflight
charges, European airlines will be out of business. They could no longer
fly east of Europe.”
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/europes-co2-airline-armageddon
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!