Climate-gate

It was only a matter of time, I suppose.
Washington, DC — A Florida state employee is in hot water for speaking about climate change at an official meeting and keeping notes of that discussion in official minutes, according to a complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In response, his superiors at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued him a letter of reprimand, ordered him to take two days leave and then told him not to return until he had medical clearance of his fitness for duty.
Click to expand...
Read more here...

During his critique of NASA’s spending on earth and atmospheric sciences at a recent committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz made some misleading claims regarding the agency’s budgets and the science that it conducts.

Cruz said there has been a “disproportionate increase” since 2009 in funding of earth sciences. There has been an increase — and it is larger than some other NASA areas — but spending on earth sciences is lower now as a percentage of NASA’s budget than it was in fiscal 2000. And the increase reflects an effort to restore funding that had been cut.
Cruz also suggested that the “core mission” of NASA does not include earth sciences. In fact, studying the Earth and atmosphere has been central to NASA’s mission since its creation in 1958.
In criticizing NASA’s spending on earth sciences, Cruz also said the agency needs to “get back to the hard sciences” — meaning space exploration and not earth and atmospheric research. The term “hard sciences” refers to fields including physics and chemistry, which are central to the research being done as part of NASA’s earth science programs.
Click to expand...
Read more here...

Look at that, a presidential candidate who doesn't know his arse-hole from his elbow.
 
chemtrail92373983933-1.jpg



 
Photizo said:
"The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide."

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
Click to expand...
first of all, i would like to state that getting information from an article or a blog over direct from scientific studies is a good way to collect biased and stupid quotes and wrong information... case in point:
in the linked article above, the PhD states
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
Click to expand...
so, right off the bat he is quoting stupidity as well as pushing a political agenda (and conspiracy theory)
there IS plenty of scientific evidence supporting AGW and the human contribution to the problem which is "scientific proof of the AGW Theory" - not hypothesis, but a full fledged theory

NOT GOOD for a phd... it ruins their credibility...
worse yet, his next comment:
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
Click to expand...
Ok, WTF?
no "believer" says this... the SCIENCE says they can predict probabilities and it is all backed up with not only hard science, but also with pretty accurate historical predictions to date.
Notice i said probabilities. that is the key word... the phd is using specific wording to inflame and obfuscate the science because he has an agenda

worse still he segue's into a horrible and stupid myth:
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
REALLY?
i decided to stop reading here because so far he is simply using tired old debunked arguments that are proven wrong as well as demonstrated to be rather stupid from a scientific standpoint (and as i looked quickly over the rest of the article, i saw where he was making a political argument from a paid for perspective as a lobbyist to industry)
the scientific standpoint is where we should be coming from
- and i point that stupidity finger straight at the idiot PhD who is pushing myths and stupidity for personal/other financial gain
don't believe he has a vested interest in obfuscating the science?
from his BIO:
Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a Vancouver-based consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions, and committee participation to government and industry ...
Click to expand...
this part shows he is being paid for by the industry with a HUGE vested interest in keeping the status quo so that they can become stupid-uber rich off the gullible and scientifically illiterate (he's a freakin lobbyist for industry... how much more biased can you get?)
then more proof comes in at the end
Moore received an honours B.Sc. in forest biology from the University of British Columbia and a Ph.D. in ecology from the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia
Click to expand...
so he does not comprehend the physics at all, and should also stay out of the climate change argument
there is no scientific data or arguments in that article link

So, then we get to the arguments he is using which are ALL POLITICAL as well as BIASED in favor of INDUSTRY and the major contributors of CO2

epic fail for the doc

His argument can be refuted with another site, except that the site i will link uses studies and references to support their position and argument and it directly refutes the comments made by that paid for hack phd: http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm

basically it comes down to a simple observation:
IF you are getting information from a blog or site then you are getting a BIASED perspective and someone is selling a point of view, NOT SCIENCE
there is only one way to get the science and that is direct from the source: STUDIES

Anyone making an argument from a political, religious, non-scientific or other standpoint is arguing from ignorance, not from reality
there is a good study that points out the problems with allowing a perspective to overwhelm the ability to think clearly and is relevant to the topic:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

Phys.org has some articles that point to the problems with conspiracy and climate change as well: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-ironclad-logic-conspiracy-theories.html#firstCmt

personally, the doc should be ashamed of his position because it is an epic fail for his credibility
 
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
swan-crm2.jpg


first of all, i would like to state that getting information from an article or a blog over direct from scientific studies is a good way to collect biased and stupid quotes and wrong information... case in point:
in the linked article above, the PhD states so, right off the bat he is quoting stupidity as well as pushing a political agenda (and conspiracy theory)
there IS plenty of scientific evidence supporting AGW and the human contribution to the problem which is "scientific proof of the AGW Theory" - not hypothesis, but a full fledged theory

NOT GOOD for a phd... it ruins their credibility...
worse yet, his next comment:
Ok, WTF?
no "believer" says this... the SCIENCE says they can predict probabilities and it is all backed up with not only hard science, but also with pretty accurate historical predictions to date.
Notice i said probabilities. that is the key word... the phd is using specific wording to inflame and obfuscate the science because he has an agenda

worse still he segue's into a horrible and stupid myth:
REALLY?
i decided to stop reading here because so far he is simply using tired old debunked arguments that are proven wrong as well as demonstrated to be rather stupid from a scientific standpoint (and as i looked quickly over the rest of the article, i saw where he was making a political argument from a paid for perspective as a lobbyist to industry)
the scientific standpoint is where we should be coming from
- and i point that stupidity finger straight at the idiot PhD who is pushing myths and stupidity for personal/other financial gain
don't believe he has a vested interest in obfuscating the science?
from his BIO: this part shows he is being paid for by the industry with a HUGE vested interest in keeping the status quo so that they can become stupid-uber rich off the gullible and scientifically illiterate (he's a freakin lobbyist for industry... how much more biased can you get?)
then more proof comes in at the endso he does not comprehend the physics at all, and should also stay out of the climate change argument
there is no scientific data or arguments in that article link

So, then we get to the arguments he is using which are ALL POLITICAL as well as BIASED in favor of INDUSTRY and the major contributors of CO2

epic fail for the doc

His argument can be refuted with another site, except that the site i will link uses studies and references to support their position and argument and it directly refutes the comments made by that paid for hack phd: http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm

basically it comes down to a simple observation:
IF you are getting information from a blog or site then you are getting a BIASED perspective and someone is selling a point of view, NOT SCIENCE
there is only one way to get the science and that is direct from the source: STUDIES

Anyone making an argument from a political, religious, non-scientific or other standpoint is arguing from ignorance, not from reality
there is a good study that points out the problems with allowing a perspective to overwhelm the ability to think clearly and is relevant to the topic:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

Phys.org has some articles that point to the problems with conspiracy and climate change as well: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-ironclad-logic-conspiracy-theories.html#firstCmt

personally, the doc should be ashamed of his position because it is an epic fail for his credibility
Click to expand...
alGore_1515233c.jpg
"way to go man! good job!"
 
I would also like to add this:
There is an overwhelming preponderance of scientific studies and information which not only support AGW but are also empirically proving the climate change we are seeing... and some are highly predictive and have been vindicated (like Francis- arguing her point for decades: http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf )

When someone chooses to accept a blog, site, article or perspective over the science, then they are actively choosing ignorance (sometimes this is stupidity because they DO know better, but choose to support the opposite anyway)
this is something studied in the above linked study: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

The best method for determining a position on a scientific issue is to go to the source. not a blog. not an article. not a site. the source. the studies. the science.
if you are going to argue science, then it should be science: not politics or religion or a faith

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...refuse-to-accept-climate-change-ill-informed/
 
You mean like this?

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png


CMIP most robust climate models.

Somethings gone terribly wrong with the theory....

BTW what is the +/- for any day of the year, any year for natural variablity....
 
Can you direct me to more on the 5%?

.................
curious that all the included models show a continued warming trend
while some solar physicists think we are headed into a grand solar minimum with decades of cooling
.........
who selected the included climate models shown?
 
Last edited:
Opinion Piece I just stumbled across:

Everyone, Even Jenny McCarthy, Has the Right to Challenge “Scientific Experts”

Years ago I was blathering to a science-writing class at Columbia Journalism School about the complexities of covering psychiatric drugs when a student, who as I recall had a medical degree, raised his hand. He said he didn’t understand what the big deal was; I should just report “the facts” that drug researchers reported in peer-reviewed journals.

I was so flabbergasted by his naivete that I just stared at him, trying to figure out how to respond politely...
Click to expand...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...as-the-right-to-challenge-scientific-experts/

A different piece by the same author:

A Dig through Old Files Reminds Me Why I’m So Critical of Science
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...les-reminds-me-why-im-so-critical-of-science/

And Because this is the climategate thread and Dr Emanuel is mentioned throughout the emails, an interesting article via link below quote:

... It seems that Dr Emanuel was brought on board to give a scientific stamp to the risk underwriting decisions relating to projected extreme weather events.

As the success of such funds is dependent upon the insured risk not taking place, one can only assume that he doesn’t believe all his own rhetoric....
Click to expand...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/eye_storm.pdf

One could also wonder how much he will profit from such an association. Why bring this up? Well there was some stir awhile back with Willie Soon. Not to be outdone, Bishop Hill presents another view:

So, in the wake of Pielke Jr's comment yesterday, we know that Kerry Emanuel has been citing a paper without disclosing that he had been involved in its preparation. We know that the paper was commissioned and paid for by green billionaire Tom Steyer. The question that now springs to mind is whether Emanuel has disclosed this activist cash in his academic work; in the wake of the recent rumpus over Willie Soon's papers, readers will recall that environmentalists are very keen that such disclosures are made.
Click to expand...

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/19/waiting-for-a-guardian-outcry.html

Pielke is one of the people Rep. Grijalva of Arizona is asking about.

Good news from NSF (and long overdue)

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) unveiled a plan March 18 that would require researchers to make publications pertaining to NSF-funded research freely and publicly available within 12 months of their initial publication.
Click to expand...

http://www.scilogs.com/communication_breakdown/nsf-open-access-2015/

All taxpayer funded research/papers should be freely available.
 
milkweed said:
... Bishop Hill presents another view: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/19/waiting-for-a-guardian-outcry.html...
Click to expand...
Yes this BLOG does assert that:
(1) "It seems that Dr Emanuel was brought on board to give a scientific stamp to the risk underwriting decisions relating to projected extreme weather events. As the success of such funds is dependent upon the insured risk not taking place, one can only assume that he doesn’t believe all his own rhetoric."
AND
(2) "We know that the paper was commissioned and paid for by green billionaire Tom Steyer."

On (1): Assuming that is not correct logic. Normally insurance companies expect that they will need to pay out and take some loses on particular policies they grant. Apply your logic to life insurance and you can conclude that those insurance companies don't really believe the people they insure will die! Insurance companies, of all times, try to charge for their policies so the profits from some more than cover the losses of others.

On (2) A blogger can assert anything he likes but when no supporting evidence is provided, you can certainly reject his claim, especially when his bias is clearly shown - In this case by becoming illogical on point (1) to make an attack on the same person his point (2) CLAIM was about.

If someone is an expert on risk evaluation, that does not mean he must not use his expertize in some firm he works in or has financial interest in. My daughter is an expert, in financial risk/ benefit analysis. One of a few owner of an investment firm, that manages money for people so rich that losing a million dollars one month is of little concern to them. Is it wrong that she has used her skill to make for herself many millions of dollars too?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sculptor said:
curious that all the included models show a continued warming trend
while some solar physicists think we are headed into a grand solar minimum with decades of cooling
Click to expand...
That's because the models - unlike "some solar physicists" quoted in wingnut world- have to agree with observation and evidence, and base their projections on cause and effect, stuff like that.

The observations are of a warming trend, see? One that has not been matching the solar changes, one that does not show any sign of becoming decades of cooling, and so forth - apparently because of all the suddenly appearing extra CO2 which is still there, for Photizo to celebrate.

milkweed said:
Everyone, Even Jenny McCarthy, Has the Right to Challenge “Scientific Experts”
Click to expand...
Sure. But that doesn't mean they can actually do it. Challenging a scientific expert requires reasoning and information.

Harassing and assaulting and ignorantly ranting doesn't "challenge" anyone, except maybe Miss Manners as she searches for gentle and civilized responses to these miserable situations.
 
Last edited:
Billy T said:
Yes this BLOG does assert that:
Click to expand...
Its so typical that you try to reply without reading the links for the whole story... I hope you read the two scientificamerican links:

2nd link said:
After all, I became a science writer because I love science, and so I have tried not to become too cynical and suspicious of researchers. I worry sometimes that I’m becoming a knee-jerk critic. But the lesson I keep learning over and over again is that I am, if anything, not critical enough.
Click to expand...
But I doubt it.
 
milkweed said:
... But I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Well you are wrong. I read all the links in full, to be sure I could say that there was not one shred of evidence supporting the Blogger's claim:
"that the paper was commissioned and paid for by green billionaire Tom Steyer."

As I explained, I began to not trust anything that blogger put up in his blog, when he ignored the way all insurance companies operate and invented, with false logic, an attack on Dr Emanuel. - The claim Dr Emanuel did not believe what he wrote in his paper about the risk of AGW, but only did so to profit in a company he had financial interest in.

Soon was a "contract scientist"- gaining about a million dollars in total from big oil interest. They even paid him only when he wrote and published his "deliverables" as they called his papers. - Soon has admitted* this and offer as defenses that in some of his papers he did note that he had received financial support from the oil industry.

*only after it was proven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Photizo said:
Pharrell brings "Happy" message on climate change to U.N.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pharrell-brings-happy-message-on-climate-change-to-u-n/
Click to expand...
Yes. from your link:
"Penelope Danielle Anastasia Latrique, the daughter of a U.N. staff member, goes to the Growing Up Green Charter School, which focuses on climate change. "Pharrell is inspiring; he makes a happy day happy about the climate," she said.

Ahmad Alhendawi, the secretary-general's envoy on youth, told CBS, "What is happening in climate change is affecting young people's lives; this year is very important and the outreach that celebrities have is vital."

That all may be true, but it will be more than a decade before they can even vote, and three or more before any of them can cause any needed change.
By then it will very likely be too late to avoid their probable deaths from AGW instead of "old age." Unfortunately it may already be "too late." CO2 rate of release is increasing as is that of CH4, and its half life in air is too (0.3years each year) Both driving 23 other positive feed backs leading to non- viable conditions for life on most of the Earth, even if CO2 release rate could be capped at the present level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top