Ian bro.....ever notice that these environmental radicals live in a state of perpetual anger and misery? Whats up with that?

I understand what he is saying. You quite obviously don't. I suppose you being a brainwashed retard has something to do with that.

No, no you don't. You're too fucking stupid to wipe your own ass so no, you don't understand this either.

[V....O.....I.....D]

Stupid is what stupid does and what we have here are mindless people only using their mouth, because they have no mind to back it up.

I've tried to be a teacher and have failed, long before coming to here. How do you teach people who already know reality and will lie for their agenda? All you can do is make it so they don't have the only voice to delude others. We know shit is going down in this world and they will say it's happened before and means nothing. No matter what happens, the fools will always be fools. Some are fools, but most are people put on websites paid to lie.

I brought up that point on WUWT. Free speech doesn't mean you can say destorying your planet will keep you from the consequence of legal action against you. I didn't press the point and simply said it. I was banned from the place and before then they wouldn't allow my input if the science didn't support their agenda. I still think they need to be sued and the future will prove it. I don't money from them fucking fools, but the government and the people of our may have a different mind, so let me hear them cry then.

Ian bro.....ever notice that these environmental radicals live in a state of perpetual anger and misery? Whats up with that?

What a bunch of brainwashed retards!!!

Why don't you mental midgets try reading the whole article by Prof. Hulme instead of just a few out of context quotes? Oh.....right.....you're retarded.

Forum rules don't allow me to quote the whole thing so go to the article website for that, but here is a few excerpts that give some context to the fragments that were used to confuse you. You denier cultists may well be far too brainwashed and bamboozled to understand what he's actually saying even with someone holding your hand and pointing to each word, so this is more for the rational people who may be reading this thread than it is for you denier cult dingleberries.

The appliance of science
The Guardian
Mike Hulme
13 March 2007
(excerpts)

Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's (Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years), or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today. Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science. So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way....Singer and Avery are using apparently scientific arguments - about 1,500 year cycles, about the loss of species, about sea-level rise - to further their deeper (yet unexpressed) values and beliefs. Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values - do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? - masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error. We need this perspective of post-normal science if we are going to make sense of books such as Singer and Avery's.

The danger of a "normal" reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off center stage. This is not a comfortable thing to say - either to those scientists who still hold an uncritical view of their privileged enterprise and who relish the status society affords them, or to politicians whose instinct is so often to hide behind the experts when confronted by difficult and genuine policy alternatives. Two years ago, Tony Blair announced the large, government-backed international climate change conference in Exeter by asking for the conference scientists to "identify what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is self-evidently too much". This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity. Lack of such reflective transparency is the problem with "unstoppable global warming", and with some other scientific commentators on climate change.

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

I've never read Jones' UHI paper and if it exists on an internet search engine, it's covered with a ton of Denialista spam. You may think getting information from a blog is information, but I don't and it isn't unless it's a somewhat private blog of professionals exchanging information. My experience in examining Denialista claims is they have always turned out to be baseless and a waste of time, but Denialistas are all about wasting other people's time.

Jones was involved in setting up 5 degree lattitude and 5 degree longitude grids and that date would indicate one of the early HadCRUT maps which had good bit of China missing data for many grids, like 40% to 50%. I don't know what Jones' paper was about, but for an urban heat island to be meaningful over such a large area requires a lot of asphalt and many cities to change the area much differently than rural measurements. It's not the size of the city that's important, but what the city is like. The HadCRUT grids are large enough that they can contain many geographic features with different climates. You also have the problem of having good data during a base period of 30 years and HadCRUT has been using 1961 to 1990 as a base period, at least lately. That may be why Jones wrote a 1990 paper, but wouldn't Jones have been involved with setting up these grids all over the world?

You do realize don't you if Jones biased the base period upward, it would show less increase in temperatrure after the base period? Temperature data tends to be biased upward, until there is vigilance to make the data representative of a grid. Once established, there is a very conscious effort to obtain reliable data, because it will screw up future measurements, whether it's biased one way or the other, if you don't. You should also realize a task the size of China would require a trained team to accomplish. I seriously doubt Jones was running all over China examining weather stations to make sure the data provided is representative of the grid. The Chinese wouldn't have been concerned before HadCRUT to make their temperature measurements representative of a grid that hadn't been established before the system was set up. The station is usually assigned to a meteorologist who reports monthly averages of continuous measurements back to the archive. Grids need enough stations to be averaged into representative measurements.

As far as the other stuff goes, Jones would need a computer bank to carry around that amount of data and didn't he leave HadCRUT before all the testimony you are citing? 5 degree by 5 degree grids are rather large, but if you had to set them up everywhere where you could on the Earth and examine the reliability and continuity of weather station data for the past 30 years, then it had to require a considerable effort, even before receiving data to your archive.

See if you can find Jones' UHI paper and I don't see how someone can object or support anything they just hear about on a blog without reading it. Later, I'll try to check some other sources where it won't be buried in Denialista spam. A lot of good science has been buried on the internet by the nonsense of the right-wing and I'm not just talking about climate science.

the added context only makes the original quote sound worse.

scientists should produce science only, and leave politics for politicians.

we expect politicians to distort the truth but we trust scientists to respect it.

the medical field has incorporated some safeguards that should be brought into climate science. one team should design the experiment, which is then passed along to another team(s) to perform. this would lessen the impact of certain scientists that look for spurious correlations and coincidences, then build a paper around them.

I cant imagine any reputable scientist using a proxy like the Tiljander cores which were distinctly labelled as unsuitable for temperature reconstructions because of human agricultural interference. Mann not only used them, but used some of them upside down because they gave a result that he was looking for.

That's your rather retarded opinion but it just shows that you were unable to understand what was being said. Your incomprehension is not very surprising, given how brainwashed and bamboozled you obviously are.






Scientists do "produce science" but if it is important science with broad implications and possibly dangerous consequences, they then have a duty to communicate the implications of their findings to the public and to world leaders. Dr. Hulme was talking about the difficulty scientists are having in doing that clearly when the area of science involved is one "where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken".

Science informs and guides political decisions in the world of rational and intelligent people. In the sad and confused little bizarro-world that you denier cultist inhabit, apparently scientists are supposed to do their work quietly and keep their mouths shut. LOL.






Too bad you have no respect for science and the facts and instead go around judging and rejecting scientific evidence and conclusions based on your political prejudices and fantasies.





Your myths about the supposed failures of climate science are the result of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign that tries to smear and denigrate both the scientists and the scientific methodology in order to prevent or delay the necessary measures to drastically limit mankind's carbon emissions. Your myths about this are pure BS though.







That's one of the myths you've been fed by that propaganda campaign.

McIntyre & McKitrick wrote a comment in 2009 to PNAS on the Mann et al. (2008) paper, and on the Tiljander issue they said:

"Their non-dendro network uses some data with the axes upside down, e.g., Korttajarvi sediments, which are also compromised by agricultural impact (M. Tiljander, personal communication),…"

To this, Mann et al. (2009) responded:

"The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use."

AGW is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts

AGW denial is a Cult populated with crazy people totally unaffected by facts