Global Cooling...

[paulitician]

Look out for 'Global Cooling.' That's the next Cult on the horizon. Stay tuned.

 

[Meister]

KevinWestern- I am somewhat astounded that you say you are familiar with the climategate emails(and presumably some of the back stories) and yet you still give the hockey team and IPCC a full pass.

Mann's hockeystick graph was the poster child of the CAGW movement. here in Canada everyone even got a copy mailed to them from the govt! 'hide the decline' refers to chopping off the last 30 years of data from Briffa's treering series solely because it did not agree with the temperature record. if that is not manipulating data perhaps you could explain what is.

Jones's 'delete all emails' attempt to thwart FOI has worked so far. the surely embarrassing crosstalk emails pertaining to the IPCC AR4 report, and the fantastic lengths gone to in order to suppress McIntyre's criticisms and bolster Mann's faulty papers, are still under lock and key. the two british investigations into Jones and the UEA did not even ask Jones if he wrote the email or whether the offending emails were in fact deleted. (Eugene Wahl testified under oath that he did delete his copies of the emails, in a scantly publicized NOAA investigation). Mann was asked by Penn if he deleted his but it was never checked.

the first batch of climategate emails were essentially hand waved away by many like you who assumed they were just taken out of context. the second set released added substantial context and brought to light the fact that many involved scientists were concerned with what they were being asked to agree with. there are still thousands more emails sitting on the internet behind a password.

the theory behind global warming sort of sounds reasonable but every time you look at any single part up close it is either wonky or vastly overstated. Judith Curry was a believer until she started asking colleagues whether their particular field of expertise and study was conforming to CAGW expectations and was met with, "my stuff doesnt fit too well but please dont tell anyone I said that". she has taken a lot of flak for being a traitor but they cant really do anything to her because she doesnt say anything that cant be backed up by data. unlike many of the hockey team who run things at the IPCC in their catagory.

I could go on and on but its all been said before. you say we think it is a conspiracy. it isnt in the usual sense except for Mann and his cronies. but calling out Mann for his mistakes would tip over the apple cart and many climate scientists would just rather let the mistakes wither on the vine. if they made him fix the upsidedown Tiljander cores it wouldnt just be his papers, it would be all the other ones downhill that used his numbers. and the scandal involved for not speaking out earlier. scientists dont want to rock the boat, they want it to go away and be left in peace to do their work.

Ian, I admit that I don't know everything about climategate, and you're obviously an intelligent person who can discuss the topic rationally, which is good and healthy.

This is my question:

Right now I hear your defense - you claim that the IPCC's credibility is poor, that there are scientists like Mann who are not credible either, and that a few reputable scientists who have started to question the credibility of the mainstream consensus (like Judith Curry). Great, I don't doubt that you think that for a good reason, but now you need to provide some evidence supporting your claim. Not evidence supporting that IPCC is not credible, but evidence supporting the claim that the science consensus is actually starting to turn in large numbers and that the majority of credible research really does not support man-made global warming anymore in such strong numbers (ie an equal work contrasting the 97/100 claim of IPCC).

I think you would need to start by citing the work of an alternate major credible science body/institution - perhaps something along the lines of an alternate intergovernmental panel (or something like that, something that's not organized by a specific or right/left leaning think tank) - who has come together, reviewed without bias the bulk of credible climate research, and concluded that the consensus is not quite as strong as what IPCC said, you know what I mean?

Where is that equivalent, Ian?

I listed some other institutions like NASA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science that side with me, again, where are yours?

The difference here so far is that my argument cites the conclusions of a number of major scientific institutions, your argument simply questions the credibility of those institutions. Which argument do you think is stronger (do you see where I'm getting at)?

Now you can say that you don't believe that the science consensus is correct, and that's fine, and just to clarify - is that what your stance is?

Kevin...you still don't get it, or maybe you do, but you just don't care. You're not going to change anyone's minds on this as no one will change yours.
Deny the corruption all you want. Also, deny your ship is sinking all you want.

 

[KevinWestern]

Kevin...you still don't get it, or maybe you do, but you just don't care. You're not going to change anyone's minds on this as no one will change yours.
Deny the corruption all you want. Also, deny your ship is sinking all you want.

I am open for mind changing, Meister (as I stated in my previous post).

All I ask is for someone to provide some evidence supporting your claim - that GW is all a farce - by citing an endorsement of that theory by perhaps an alternate official intergovernmental study or governmental study conducted in the past 5 years or so by one of the major developed nations, or by citing perhaps a study conducted by a reputable and reasonably independent science institution - such as The American Association for the Advancement of Science. That's all I'm looking for. Why's that so hard? (I feel like I'm pulling teeth here).

We can get to the so called corruption of my data and sources later, but lets first start with your stuff....

I mean, If I'm truly crazy, there must be thousands upon thousands of honest independent research studies and reports that will back up your claim, with endorsements by various governmental institutions around the world - right?

Anyways.

 

[Meister]

Kevin...you still don't get it, or maybe you do, but you just don't care. You're not going to change anyone's minds on this as no one will change yours.
Deny the corruption all you want. Also, deny your ship is sinking all you want.

I am open for mind changing, Meister (as I stated in my previous post).

All I ask is for someone to provide some evidence supporting your claim - that GW is all a farce - by sourcing an endorsement of that theory by perhaps renowned and reputable reasonably independent science institution - such as The American Association for the Advancement of Science - or an alternate official intergovernmental study conducted in the past 5 years or so that reached a conclusion supporting your claim, so that we can continue the discussion.

I've cited some major institutions that support my claim, yet I haven't heard any yet from your side.

Anyways.....

When the so called scientists fudge numbers and delete data then turn to the institutions with their "findings" and let the institutions publish their findings using the data given to them. That's what you want to hang your hat on? Go ahead, not everbody is as gullible.

 

[KevinWestern]

When the so called scientists fudge numbers and delete data then turn to the institutions with their "findings" and let the institutions publish their findings using the data given to them. That's what you want to hang your hat on? Go ahead, not everbody is as gullible.

Meister - I don't think you're getting my point.

You're still not giving any evidence that shows GW isn't real, while at the same time calling me crazy.

Anyways, it's my opinion that I don't think you're ultra-familiar with the scientific process (based on our back and forth), and I don't think we're going to see eye to eye.

 

[Ropey]

When the so called scientists fudge numbers and delete data then turn to the institutions with their "findings" and let the institutions publish their findings using the data given to them. That's what you want to hang your hat on? Go ahead, not everbody is as gullible.

Meister - I don't think you're getting my point.

You're still not giving any evidence that shows GW isn't real, while at the same time calling me crazy.

Anyways, it's my opinion that I don't think you're ultra-familiar with the scientific process (based on our back and forth), and I don't think we're going to see eye to eye.

The issue is not that the cycle of global warming and cooling is real or false. The issue is that the scientists for the environmentalists have been caught fudging the numbers too many times.

Not many care to be lied to anymore which is why the issue polls so low.

 

[KevinWestern]

The issue is not that the cycle of global warming and cooling is real or false. The issue is that the scientists for the environmentalists have been caught fudging the numbers too many times.

Not many care to be lied to anymore which is why the issue polls so low.

So, then, your position is that you simply don't trust science anymore?

Are you familiar with the peer review process?

As I mentioned before, one man publishing a paper means nothing. One man who's paper was published and reviewed by a pool of credible peers (who endorse his claim) is getting somewhere. Multiply that by about 100 times, with everything pointing in one direction, and you start to move to the realm of science fact (such as things like evolution, or that the sun is made of gas, ect).

If a scientist fudges numbers, it will get caught in the peer review process. The only way it won't get caught is for the entire network of respected and established climate scientists across the globe are in "cahoots" with each other; however, this is obviously impossible.

The peer review process roots out dishonest/bad scientists. It's self correcting. This is a fact.

I need one of you to explain to me how these large networks of scientists are able to "fudge numbers", while at the same time seemingly not get caught in the peer review process, which is done by hundreds of independent scientists and is totally out of their control.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of the George C. Marshall Institute. Also, watch this lecture in it's entirety when you get a chance (it's interesting stuff, really):

 

[Ropey]

So, then, your position is that you simply don't trust science anymore?

No, I don't trust scientists when they are repeatedly caught fudging numbers.

 

[KevinWestern]

No, I don't trust scientists when they are repeatedly caught fudging numbers.

Lol, alright Ropey. I think it's time to part our separate ways then.

Just please do yourself a favor and watch the video I posted, and read this:

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review catches falsehoods. It's a self-regulating method that gives credibility to our scientific process.

If you don't trust in it - and science - you mine as well believe the moon is made of cheese and there's a giant mouse that flies around our universe on a broomstick made of vulture skin.

 

[Ropey]

Climate Scientists Fudge the Numbers on Sea Level, UN Uses Propaganda to Advance Renewables

Global warming is slowing down, say scientists

Or just search yourself. There's a preponderance of evidence that shows fudging, non-fudging and the resultant lack of concern by a public who has recognized the fudging.

Scientist Fudge Numbers Global Warming - Google Search

 

[Meister]

When the so called scientists fudge numbers and delete data then turn to the institutions with their "findings" and let the institutions publish their findings using the data given to them. That's what you want to hang your hat on? Go ahead, not everbody is as gullible.

Meister - I don't think you're getting my point.

You're still not giving any evidence that shows GW isn't real, while at the same time calling me crazy.

Anyways, it's my opinion that I don't think you're ultra-familiar with the scientific process (based on our back and forth), and I don't think we're going to see eye to eye.

Kevin......I believe in global warming. I don't believe in 'Man made" global warming.
I don't have to prove to you anything. You haven't proven that there IS Man made global warming. What you use as your science is disengenuous science at best.
I think your naive and gullible, so no, we won't see eye to eye, I understand that.

 

[Meister]

The issue is not that the cycle of global warming and cooling is real or false. The issue is that the scientists for the environmentalists have been caught fudging the numbers too many times.

Not many care to be lied to anymore which is why the issue polls so low.

So, then, your position is that you simply don't trust science anymore?

Are you familiar with the peer review process?

As I mentioned before, one man publishing a paper means nothing. One man who's paper was published and reviewed by a pool of credible peers (who endorse his claim) is getting somewhere. Multiply that by about 100 times, with everything pointing in one direction, and you start to move to the realm of science fact (such as things like evolution, or that the sun is made of gas, ect).

If a scientist fudges numbers, it will get caught in the peer review process. The only way it won't get caught is for the entire network of respected and established climate scientists across the globe are in "cahoots" with each other; however, this is obviously impossible.

The peer review process roots out dishonest/bad scientists. It's self correcting. This is a fact.

I need one of you to explain to me how these large networks of scientists are able to "fudge numbers", while at the same time seemingly not get caught in the peer review process, which is done by hundreds of independent scientists and is totally out of their control.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of the George C. Marshall Institute. Also, watch this lecture in it's entirety when you get a chance (it's interesting stuff, really):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio]The American Denial of Global Warming - YouTube[/ame]

Oh brother....the fox watching the hen house?

 

[westwall]

The issue is not that the cycle of global warming and cooling is real or false. The issue is that the scientists for the environmentalists have been caught fudging the numbers too many times.

Not many care to be lied to anymore which is why the issue polls so low.

So, then, your position is that you simply don't trust science anymore?

Are you familiar with the peer review process?

As I mentioned before, one man publishing a paper means nothing. One man who's paper was published and reviewed by a pool of credible peers (who endorse his claim) is getting somewhere. Multiply that by about 100 times, with everything pointing in one direction, and you start to move to the realm of science fact (such as things like evolution, or that the sun is made of gas, ect).

If a scientist fudges numbers, it will get caught in the peer review process. The only way it won't get caught is for the entire network of respected and established climate scientists across the globe are in "cahoots" with each other; however, this is obviously impossible.

The peer review process roots out dishonest/bad scientists. It's self correcting. This is a fact.

I need one of you to explain to me how these large networks of scientists are able to "fudge numbers", while at the same time seemingly not get caught in the peer review process, which is done by hundreds of independent scientists and is totally out of their control.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of the George C. Marshall Institute. Also, watch this lecture in it's entirety when you get a chance (it's interesting stuff, really):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio]The American Denial of Global Warming - YouTube[/ame]

I am a scientist so i inherently "trust" science. However, an entire group of "scientists" have not just "fudged" data, they have engaged in outright scientific fraud. So, no....I don't trust anything those clowns would ever say. They have brought the science of climatology down to the level of palm reading. They have also damaged the publics view of science in general.

What they have done is outrageous and a black mark on science that will take years to mend.

 

[westwall]

The issue is not that the cycle of global warming and cooling is real or false. The issue is that the scientists for the environmentalists have been caught fudging the numbers too many times.

Not many care to be lied to anymore which is why the issue polls so low.

So, then, your position is that you simply don't trust science anymore?

Are you familiar with the peer review process?

As I mentioned before, one man publishing a paper means nothing. One man who's paper was published and reviewed by a pool of credible peers (who endorse his claim) is getting somewhere. Multiply that by about 100 times, with everything pointing in one direction, and you start to move to the realm of science fact (such as things like evolution, or that the sun is made of gas, ect).

If a scientist fudges numbers, it will get caught in the peer review process. The only way it won't get caught is for the entire network of respected and established climate scientists across the globe are in "cahoots" with each other; however, this is obviously impossible.

The peer review process roots out dishonest/bad scientists. It's self correcting. This is a fact.

I need one of you to explain to me how these large networks of scientists are able to "fudge numbers", while at the same time seemingly not get caught in the peer review process, which is done by hundreds of independent scientists and is totally out of their control.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of the George C. Marshall Institute. Also, watch this lecture in it's entirety when you get a chance (it's interesting stuff, really):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio]The American Denial of Global Warming - YouTube[/ame]

Oh brother....the fox watching the hen house?

When it's the only way you can win, you do whatever it takes.

 

[KevinWestern]

I am a scientist so i inherently "trust" science. However, an entire group of "scientists" have not just "fudged" data, they have engaged in outright scientific fraud. So, no....I don't trust anything those clowns would ever say. They have brought the science of climatology down to the level of palm reading. They have also damaged the publics view of science in general.

What they have done is outrageous and a black mark on science that will take years to mend.

@Westwall - Who is "they", and what exactly have "they" done that somehow discredits the work of all scientists who have participated in the climate discussion? Also, do you think the "peer review" process no longer works or applies to the global warming discussion?

Either way guys, it's like 3 against 1 here, and none of you are giving me anything except for saying "you're wrong and naive" (with the exception of Ian).

I'm going to go take a break and enjoy a nice walk with my dog by the lake and enjoy this 81 degree day, in Chicago, in MARCH.

Cheers.

 

[Meister]

Good for you, I'm glad your a dog lover, Kevin. I took my dogs down by the Spokane River when it was snowing this morning. I think it warmed up to 40 degrees today. Normal this time of year is 48 degrees.

 

[uscitizen]

82 degrees here in KY today. "normal" high is in the 50's. And this is to continue for at least a week.

 

[Ropey]

good for you, i'm glad your a dog lover, kevin. I took my dogs down by the spokane river when it was snowing this morning. I think it warmed up to 40 degrees today. Normal this time of year is 48 degrees.

There's a lot of scientists who've got some numbers for you.

Hey, it worked for Al.

 

[westwall]

I am a scientist so i inherently "trust" science. However, an entire group of "scientists" have not just "fudged" data, they have engaged in outright scientific fraud. So, no....I don't trust anything those clowns would ever say. They have brought the science of climatology down to the level of palm reading. They have also damaged the publics view of science in general.

What they have done is outrageous and a black mark on science that will take years to mend.

@Westwall - Who is "they", and what exactly have "they" done that somehow discredits the work of all scientists who have participated in the climate discussion? Also, do you think the "peer review" process no longer works or applies to the global warming discussion?

Either way guys, it's like 3 against 1 here, and none of you are giving me anything except for saying "you're wrong and naive" (with the exception of Ian).

I'm going to go take a break and enjoy a nice walk with my dog by the lake and enjoy this 81 degree day, in Chicago, in MARCH.

Cheers.

I suggest you look into the corruption of the peer review process that has infected the climatology field. They turned it into an at best pal review process and at their worst they prevented legitimate papers from being published because they were counter to the story line of the AGW supporters. That is a totally unethical and fraudulent corruption of the process.

I'll let you look up the relevent bits, they are here in the enviro section and they are all over the web. I suggest you begin with the Steig et al fiasco and for a wonderful example of the pal review process in action look up the polar bear study that was found to be based on a sighting of four bears and there was nothing else ever done. The "scientist" wrote a wonderful paper and his WIFE peer reviewed it for him (how nice of her to do that) then it was duly submitted.

He is now under investigation for fraud. As far as the damage they have done to science as a whole, when you have such wholesale fraud going on and then it is totally exposed with the CLIMATEGATE 1 & 2 releases, which elicit an "investigation" run by those who are the most involved in the fraud and you have a public that takes a jaundiced view of the whole of science.

Now you have the moron Gleick, stealing files from the Heartland Inst. and further creating a fraudulent memo and the public now wants nothing to do with the whole lot of us.

Thanks...prick.

 

[Old Rocks]

The issue is not that the cycle of global warming and cooling is real or false. The issue is that the scientists for the environmentalists have been caught fudging the numbers too many times.

Not many care to be lied to anymore which is why the issue polls so low.

So, then, your position is that you simply don't trust science anymore?

Are you familiar with the peer review process?

As I mentioned before, one man publishing a paper means nothing. One man who's paper was published and reviewed by a pool of credible peers (who endorse his claim) is getting somewhere. Multiply that by about 100 times, with everything pointing in one direction, and you start to move to the realm of science fact (such as things like evolution, or that the sun is made of gas, ect).

If a scientist fudges numbers, it will get caught in the peer review process. The only way it won't get caught is for the entire network of respected and established climate scientists across the globe are in "cahoots" with each other; however, this is obviously impossible.

The peer review process roots out dishonest/bad scientists. It's self correcting. This is a fact.

I need one of you to explain to me how these large networks of scientists are able to "fudge numbers", while at the same time seemingly not get caught in the peer review process, which is done by hundreds of independent scientists and is totally out of their control.

Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of the George C. Marshall Institute. Also, watch this lecture in it's entirety when you get a chance (it's interesting stuff, really):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio]The American Denial of Global Warming - YouTube[/ame]

I am a scientist so i inherently "trust" science. However, an entire group of "scientists" have not just "fudged" data, they have engaged in outright scientific fraud. So, no....I don't trust anything those clowns would ever say. They have brought the science of climatology down to the level of palm reading. They have also damaged the publics view of science in general.

What they have done is outrageous and a black mark on science that will take years to mend.

You claim to be a scientist and regularly denigrate science and scientists.

And you have repeatedly lied on this board, and proved yourself to be ignorant on many points of geology.