How far have we already gone?

[asterism]

Alaskan glaciers. good topic.

I could go on and on about how most of the loss of AGs happened in the 1800's but I would like to bring up a slightly different aspect.

first I want you to refresh your thoughts on the scientific method. is it OK to hide an experiment that doesnt give you the expected results? most scientists would say no, but climate science is a different kettle of fish.

the Canadian govt funded an ice core project for a glacier in Alaska. it was done. but no results were released. the funding required that a preliminary report must be filed and when someone FOIed that it showed that the glacier was only ~2000 years old. bad news for the global warming gang that insist that we have never been warm before. so it just sits on the shelf, hidden from embarrassing publicity. is this how science should be done?

When you make a claim like that, provide a link. Otherwise, it is just considered bullshit.

I would take that under advisement from a newcomer but you have already seen the link because it has been discussed before. its funny how you always seem to completely forget any evidence that does not fit your worldview.

I'd like to see it please.

On edit: Thanks.

 

[IanC]

When you make a claim like that, provide a link. Otherwise, it is just considered bullshit.

I would take that under advisement from a newcomer but you have already seen the link because it has been discussed before. its funny how you always seem to completely forget any evidence that does not fit your worldview.

I found the original article. The Inconvenient Skeptic » The Integrity of Science. I misremebered Canadian funding but canadian research disclosure policy was part of the story.

I then googled Bona-Churchill ice core and found quite a few hits. Lonny Thompson (famous for not correcting blatant errors in Gore's AIT even though he was a consultant) did the cores in 2002, made a preliminary presentation in 2004, and the data has been supressed ever since. the website still says the data is 'in processing' 10 years later. the 18O levels show no recent warming even though Thompson said they showed unpresedented warming, there was no ash layer that they were looking for, and the lifespan of the glacier was shorter than they had hoped. all round total failure, good thing they didnt have to publish the results and give fodder to the skeptics.

oh, and BTW, Steve McIntyre predicted the whole fiasco once he noticed that the gang had shut up about the cores. the Hockey Team is so predictable in their churlish behaviour.

there you go asterism. try doing the google and checking out ongoing reports on McIntyre's Climate Audit. this one instance is emblematic of the strange goings on in climate science. while you're at Climate Audit you should check out the latest on FOI in the Yamal proxy case. it basically documents lying done by the Team, and the gross incompetence of the Oxburgh and Muir-Russell investigations.

 

[westwall]

the H-R model was created back in Queen Victoria's time, wasnt it? are you guys complaining that modern computers are now used to refine it? seems like nitpicking to me.

No, we're pointing out that observations of stellar phenomena are the equivalent of observing the single beat of a birds wing in flight and postulating it's entire genesis from birth through death from that single observation. Thus the reliance on computer modelling. We simply don't live long enough to make useable observations of stellar physics and to claim we do is assinine.

That's why witnessing supernovae are so important. In those single week long events, we learn more than in the previous hundred years of observation.

 

[IanC]

the H-R model was created back in Queen Victoria's time, wasnt it? are you guys complaining that modern computers are now used to refine it? seems like nitpicking to me.

No, we're pointing out that observations of stellar phenomena are the equivalent of observing the single beat of a birds wing in flight and postulating it's entire genesis from birth through death from that single observation. Thus the reliance on computer modelling. We simply don't live long enough to make useable observations of stellar physics and to claim we do is assinine.

That's why witnessing supernovae are so important. In those single week long events, we learn more than in the previous hundred years of observation.

the H-R model was formed by catagorizing thousands of photographs of stars. the main line was formed and the outliers made for further investigation. I think if you took 10,000 pictures of random people you could model birth, growth, decline and death.

 

[westwall]

the H-R model was created back in Queen Victoria's time, wasnt it? are you guys complaining that modern computers are now used to refine it? seems like nitpicking to me.

No, we're pointing out that observations of stellar phenomena are the equivalent of observing the single beat of a birds wing in flight and postulating it's entire genesis from birth through death from that single observation. Thus the reliance on computer modelling. We simply don't live long enough to make useable observations of stellar physics and to claim we do is assinine.

That's why witnessing supernovae are so important. In those single week long events, we learn more than in the previous hundred years of observation.

the H-R model was formed by catagorizing thousands of photographs of stars. the main line was formed and the outliers made for further investigation. I think if you took 10,000 pictures of random people you could model birth, growth, decline and death.

Birth, no. Growth, possibly, it depends on the event you take the photo at. If you took a shot at a concert I kinda doubt it. Decline, maybe, the same parameters apply, and death, once again probably not. We have trillions of stars and have witnessed 5? super nova.

Not a good analogy.

 

[IanC]

random people. people live for ~25000 days. 10,000 samples would give a reasonable range and enough data to synthesis an order from birth, growth to maturity, main line, and decline to death.

your mention of supernovas is interesting. the study of stars off the mainline led to exploring the reasons why they were different. regular novas are the measuring stick of the universe. blah,blah, blah.

I think you must be arguing just to argue. I thought Feynman was your hero. he had lots of examples of how aliens would figure out what was happening on earth even with incomplete information.

 

[wirebender]

the H-R model was formed by catagorizing thousands of photographs of stars. the main line was formed and the outliers made for further investigation. I think if you took 10,000 pictures of random people you could model birth, growth, decline and death.

But you can actualy observe the growth and development of a person. With stars, it is all assumption. There is only so much data you can glean from a snapshot of a star, no matter how many you have and that snapshot will tell you nothing about the evolution of that particular star. The best you can do is assume that your other photos in some way relate to the one you are looking at.

What we know about stars is even less than what we know about the energy budget of the earth and that is precious little.

 

[konradv]

But you can actualy observe the growth and development of a person. With stars, it is all assumption. There is only so much data you can glean from a snapshot of a star, no matter how many you have and that snapshot will tell you nothing about the evolution of that particular star. The best you can do is assume that your other photos in some way relate to the one you are looking at.

What we know about stars is even less than what we know about the energy budget of the earth and that is precious little.

It isn't "assumption", it's 'deduction', a time honored part of science. You should check into it.

 

[wirebender]

It isn't "assumption", it's 'deduction', a time honored part of science. You should check into it.

Deduction based on assumptions made between 1911 and 1913. How quaint that you would accept such as if it were fact. Of course you also accept quaint 19th century science which was nearly immediately shown to be wrong as fact with regard to the greenhouse effect.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So while we're discussing the Fraud know as AGW, can we delve further into the astounding realization that the Warmers and Decline Hider are actually saying that the change from 350PPM to 390PPM has been cataclysmic and has caused changes unprecedented in millions of years.

Think of it, all these dire weather occurrences, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, locusts are spawned from a 40, maybe only a 20 PPM increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2

I mocked them for saying that a .01% change in the atmosphere causes climactic changes and they've countered by saying it's really only a .002% change in the atmosphere has done all the damage

 

[wirebender]

I mocked them for saying that a .01% change in the atmosphere causes climactic changes and they've countered by saying it's really only a .002% change in the atmosphere has done all the damage

The fact that anyone has bought into the hoax is a sad testament to how profoundly the world's educational systems have been dumbed down.

 

[konradv]

I mocked them for saying that a .01% change in the atmosphere causes climactic changes and they've countered by saying it's really only a .002% change in the atmosphere has done all the damage

We mock you for saying a a 30-40% change in an active ingredient is really a much smaller change because you're counting inactive ingredients.

 

[meatheadmike]

Where do the scientific organizations get their funding from? Where do the scientists who run the organizations get their funding from? Oh yeah, that's right....they get it from the taxpayers. They get their money based on how dire their predictions are. I wonder when they will actually get a prediction correct? So far they've had 30 year and 100 billion dollars to make some wonderful predictions but instead, we get Hansen and his prediction which is 300% off. But in olfrauds world that is considered pretty accurate.

And you clowns wonder why you're losing.

Do you really think that one day a bunch of Scientists from different Universities around the world collectively invented global warming for the sole purpose of gaining government funding?

Ask yourself this... which group has more to gain:

- University Scientists who "invent global climate change" so that they can gain government funding?

OR

- Big Oil corporations who spread misinformation that Global Climate change is a hoax, so that they can keep the entire world dependent on Oil, hold back green energy, and maximize their profits?

Before you answer, ask yourself which group of the two has more money and power?
Which of the two groups would have more resources to spread their lie?

This whole debate kind is similar to how the tobacco companies spread misinformation that cigarettes aren't bad for people all the way up until the 80s/90s.

 

[wirebender]

Do you really think that one day a bunch of Scientists from different Universities around the world collectively invented global warming for the sole purpose of gaining government funding?

Of course not in a single day. This has evolved over decades with funding exponentially with the shrillness of the claims being made

Ask yourself this... which group has more to gain:

- University Scientists who "invent global climate change" so that they can gain government funding?

OR

- Big Oil corporations who spread misinformation that Global Climate change is a hoax, so that they can keep the entire world dependent on Oil, hold back green energy, and maximize their profits?

That question is easy. Which group has money to burn and which group is always scampering about trying to wrest donations from alumni groups, sponsors, generous patrons etc?

The oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails.

Before you answer, ask yourself which group of the two has more money and power?
Which of the two groups would have more resources to spread their lie?

Again, an easy question to answer. Even the most rabid of green groups only claim that 50 million has been spent by big oil in funding skeptics over the past decade. Contrast that to the 5 billion poured into the coffers of the warmists anually by the US government alone. Here is a report on money spent by the us from the GAO.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf

The idea that somehow skeptics are outspending warmists is absolutely laughable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I mocked them for saying that a .01% change in the atmosphere causes climactic changes and they've countered by saying it's really only a .002% change in the atmosphere has done all the damage

We mock you for saying a a 30-40% change in an active ingredient is really a much smaller change because you're counting inactive ingredients.

1. CO2 is inert

2. If it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful why is the lab so cruel to your "theory" and refusing to collaborate?

 

[wirebender]

2. If it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful why is the lab so cruel to your "theory" and refusing to collaborate?

The warmist and luke warmist camp is full of scientific illiterates, but konradv has set the bar at a whole new low for them.

 

[Big Fitz]

2. If it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful why is the lab so cruel to your "theory" and refusing to collaborate?

The warmist and luke warmist camp is full of scientific illiterates, but konradv has set the bar at a whole new low for them.

It's MAGICAL CO2!

Everybody LIIIIMMMMMBOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

 

[wirebender]

It's MAGICAL CO2!

Everybody LIIIIMMMMMBOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Limbo came to mind when I wrote that but somehow I couldn't picture that crotchedy tight assed group loosening up for anything that's actually fun. I get the impression that to be a believer they must take on the robes of ascetic monks and worship constantly at the empty alters of their high priests who are usually absent due to jaunts about the world in private jumbo jets or wandering about their 50,000 square foot mansions turning on lights so they don't trip over the piles of ill gotten cash.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....even a far lefty writing in the New York Times gets it...............ready to jump off a 50 story building due to global warming but clearly see's nobody cares about the climate...........

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1336737955-p00ORg+tBTeaXE5lFtqc1A

 

[Old Rocks]

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?