Ruh Roh The warmers are losing teh Royal Society!

[Old Rocks]

Wegener was a very interesting man, and a first rate scientist. More on his life can be found here;

Wegener, Alfred

While the majority of scientists could not accept the hypothesis, he had many supporters, because of his meticulous work pointing out the similarties of rock units on the various continents.


The Wrath of Science
Except for a few converts, and those like Cloos who couldn't accept the concept but was clearly fascinated by it, the international geological community's reaction to Wegener's theory was militantly hostile. American geologist Frank Taylor had published a similar theory in 1910, but most of his colleagues had simply ignored it. Wegener's more cogent and comprehensive work, however, was impossible to ignore and ignited a firestorm of rage and rancor. Moreover, most of the blistering attacks were aimed at Wegener himself, an outsider who seemed to be attacking the very foundations of geology.

Because of this abuse, Wegener could not get a professorship at any German university. Fortunately, the University of Graz in Austria was more tolerant of controversy, and in 1924 it appointed him professor of meteorology and geophysics.

In 1926 Wegener was invited to an international symposium in New York called to discuss his theory. Though he found some supporters, many speakers were sarcastic to the point of insult. Wegener said little. He just sat smoking his pipe and listening. His attitude seems to have mirrored that of Galileo who, forced to recant Copernicus' theory that the Earth moves around the sun, is said to have murmured, "Nevertheless, it moves!"

Scientifically, of course, Wegener's case was not as good as Galileo's, which was based on mathematics. His major problem was finding a force or forces that could make the continents "plow around in the mantle," as one critic put it. Wegener tentatively suggested two candidates: centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the Earth, and tidal-type waves in the Earth itself generated by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon.

He realized these forces were inadequate. "It is probable the complete solution of the problem of the forces will be a long time coming," he predicted in his last (1929) revision. "The Newton of drift theory has not yet appeared."

Wegener noted, however, that one thing was certain:

The forces that displace continents are the same as those that produce great fold-mountain ranges. Continental drift, faults and compressions, earthquakes, volcanicity, [ocean] transgression cycles and [apparent] polar wandering are undoubtedly connected on a grand scale.

Wegener's final revision cited supporting evidence from many fields, including testimonials from scientists who found his hypothesis resolved difficulties in their disciplines much better than the old theories. Climatology was one such discipline.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm smoking nothing but your ass with the bat of reality.

The Telegraph is no doubt a source that you may well cite, if the conclusion came up your way, despite an equal lack of attribution...So, your "just a blog" argument falls flat.

Just sayin'

Hi Dude,

Just goes to show you these clowns aren't bright enough to figure out why I used the source I did. I will make it simple for them. I used the Telegraph site because they were huge proponents of AGW theory and for them to now report this emphasizes just how far the warmers have lost the plot.

You used the source you did because you were to lazy to actually check out the fact that it is 43 out 1300 requesting a review of the policy. A review that will result in a stronger statement.

 

[westwall]

I'm smoking nothing but your ass with the bat of reality.

The Telegraph is no doubt a source that you may well cite, if the conclusion came up your way, despite an equal lack of attribution...So, your "just a blog" argument falls flat.

Just sayin'

Hi Dude,

Just goes to show you these clowns aren't bright enough to figure out why I used the source I did. I will make it simple for them. I used the Telegraph site because they were huge proponents of AGW theory and for them to now report this emphasizes just how far the warmers have lost the plot.

You used the source you did because you were to lazy to actually check out the fact that it is 43 out 1300 requesting a review of the policy. A review that will result in a stronger statement.

Wrong again boyo, if it were such a non-deal the Society would not be doing anything...but you have no knowledge of the inner workings of the Society. This is a huge deal. And once again my comments stand...I am a scientist who believes in the scientific method and you are a propagandist.

Unlike you I don't care who's right. I only care that the truth is found. So far the warmers have violated every scientific protocol known. They have corrupted the peer review process. They are not worthy of the appelation scientist, they should be dealt with extremely harshly (especially the twits who committed fraud to secure tax payer funded grants) and they will be.

 

[westwall]

One other thing struck me as I was thinking about your attack (for having the temerity to have an opinion in a science they were not degreed in) on the Fellows of the Royal Society old fraud.

Just imagine poor Alfred Wegener and all of his work in the field of geology (he is the first person to properly define plate tectonics you know) and all of the misery he endured at the hands of his fellow scientists who KNEW he was wrong. He was drummed out of virtually every scientific organization on the planet and was only able to get a teaching job in Austria before his untimely death at the age of 50 up on the Greenland ice sheet.

What is amusing to me is that while he is most known for his geological work (which in the end was found to be based on very solid observations and as we now know fundamentally correct) he was in fact NOT A GEOLOGIST but a METEOROLOGIST! So I guess in your twisted little world Wegener can't have an opinion about geology because....welll....he's not a geologist!

Once again, you prove your vast ignorance of geology.

Alfred Wegener was a German climatologist and Geophysicist. And he was certainly not the first to notice the fit of the continents.

Continental drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wegener and his predecessors
The hypothesis that the continents had once formed a single landmass before breaking apart and drifting to their present locations was fully formulated by Alfred Wegener in 1912.[2] Although Wegener's theory was formed independently and was more complete than those of his predecessors, Wegener later credited a number of past authors with similar ideas:[3][4] Franklin Coxworthy (between 1848 and 1890),[5] Roberto Mantovani (between 1889 and 1909), William Henry Pickering (1907)[6] and Frank Bursley Taylor (1908).

For example: the similarity of southern continent geological formations had led Roberto Mantovani to conjecture in 1889 and 1909 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent (now known as Pangaea); Wegener noted the similarity of Mantovani's and his own maps of the former positions of the southern continents. Through volcanic activity due to thermal expansion this continent broke and the new continents drifted away from each other because of further expansion of the rip-zones, where the oceans now lie. This led Mantovani to propose an Expanding Earth theory which has since been shown to be incorrect.[7][8][9]

Some sort of continental drift without expansion was proposed by Frank Bursley Taylor, who suggested in 1908 (published in 1910) that the continents were dragged towards the equator by increased lunar gravity during the Cretaceous, thus forming the Himalayas and Alps on the southern faces. Wegener said that of all those theories, Taylor's, although not fully developed, had the most similarities to his own.[10]

Wegener was the first to use the phrase "continental drift" (1912, 1915)[2][3] (in German "die Verschiebung der Kontinente" – translated into English in 1922) and formally publish the hypothesis that the continents had somehow "drifted" apart. Although he presented much evidence for continental drift, he was unable to provide a convincing explanation for the physical processes which might have caused this drift. His suggestion that the continents had been pulled apart by the centrifugal pseudoforce (Polflucht) of the Earth's rotation or by a small component of astronomical precession was rejected as calculations showed that the force was not sufficient.[11] The Polflucht hypothesis was also threated by Paul Sophus Epstein in 1920.

Wegener gathered the known fossil evidence from the geologically similiar areas on the various continents, and demonstrated through strata, geo-chemistry, and fossils the relationship in time and place.

What he could not do was show how it was possible for the fragile continental rock to plow through ocean basalt. The explanation had to wait for the seminal paper of Vine and Mathew in '63.

Old Fraud,

You need to get your information from sources other than wiki. He ACTUALLY had his PhD in ASTRONOMY (got you!)from the University of Berlin which he earned in 1904. While at the University of Marburg he tired of the many obstacles that were being continuously placed in his way and so in 1924 he accepted a specially created professorship in meteorology and geophysics at the University of Graz, in Austria because they realised his significant contributions to those scientific specialties. So yes he was GRANTED a professorship but he was never degreed in either discipline.

 

[RollingThunder]

It appears that the Royal Society has figured out that it was backing the wrong pony and is going to review its AGW statements...and it is going to have SCEPTICS on the panel oh my!

Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming – Telegraph Blogs

I told you old fraud...the end is nigh!

You are a really delusional fruitcake, walleyed.

Here's what the Royal Society actual said in their statements, as opposed to the denier cult delusional conclusions you draw from some newspaper articles.

Royal Society to publish new guide to the science of climate change
Published Date: 28 May 2010
(excerpts)

Martin Rees added:”It is three years since the Society published a document specifically designed to help the general public get a full understanding of climate change. Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change. In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the Fellowship of the Society there are differing views. Our guide will be based on expert views backed up by sound scientific evidence.”

The new guide has been planned for some time but was given added impetus by concerns raised by a small group of Fellows of the Society that older documents designed to challenge some of the common misrepresentations of the science were too narrow in their focus.

Climate Change
New guide to science of climate change

The Royal Society has a continuous process of review – it is known as the scientific method. New data, observations, ideas, calculations etc. are provided continually, are reviewed, and either rejected or incorporated in the published literature. In addition, there are public discussion meetings or conferences at which the status of any developing subject is re-assessed and debated. Climate science is like any other active area of science, and new technical publications appear continually. There were two open discussion meetings (Greenhouse gases in the Earth system: setting the agenda to 2030 and Handling uncertainty in science) which concerned climate science at the Royal Society earlier this year, and a new volume of Phil. Trans, is in preparation. It is this very extensive process, and the large accumulated scientific literature, that determine the level of certainty in a scientific subject at any given time. All this published information is readily available to anyone who wishes to read it.

If a subject is of great topical significance and public consequence, the Royal Society produces documents to explain the current status of the scientific field in a manner accessible to a wide public audience. A number of such documents have been issued about climate science to go alongside the scientific literature. These documents reflect both the scientific knowledge available/consensus at the time, and the particular concerns of the time which suggested the need for the document.

Statements by the Society have to be approved by the Council, following a review which is independent of the group of people who draft the document. The documents are generally drafted by experts in the subject, who are fully familiar with the extensive scientific literature, and with the scientific debates which led to the current status.

The Royal Society is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components. This had been planned for some time (it is 3 years since the last such document), but was given extra impetus by a number of Fellows who were concerned that older public facing documents could be interpreted as an unwillingness to accept dissenting views. This is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS. The new document will supersede previous documents.

In addition to the working group that drafts the document and the separate review for Council, two other groups have been charged with providing independent input to the draft document. There is a wide spectrum of views across the Fellowship – as should be expected – and so the membership of these two groups differs and covers a broad range. There is representation on all the groups involved of Fellows who have expressed concerns. The membership overall is mainly of Fellows who are expert in climate science.

It is intended that, providing Council approves it, the new document will be published this summer, with full details. At that point, media will be informed and invited to comment and question as may be required.

There is a wide variety of views across the Fellowship on any active area of science, not just climate science, and this diversity is an essential component of the testing that scientific knowledge must always undergo. Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon. The enormous beneficial impact of science over the last 350 years is testament to the success of this balancing of uncertainty with action in the application of science.

Copyright © 2009 Royal Society

(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.)

 

[westwall]

It appears that the Royal Society has figured out that it was backing the wrong pony and is going to review its AGW statements...and it is going to have SCEPTICS on the panel oh my!

Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming – Telegraph Blogs

I told you old fraud...the end is nigh!

You are a really delusional fruitcake, walleyed.

Here's what the Royal Society actual said in their statements, as opposed to the denier cult delusional conclusions you draw from some newspaper articles.

Royal Society to publish new guide to the science of climate change
Published Date: 28 May 2010
(excerpts)

Martin Rees added:”It is three years since the Society published a document specifically designed to help the general public get a full understanding of climate change. Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change. In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the Fellowship of the Society there are differing views. Our guide will be based on expert views backed up by sound scientific evidence.”

The new guide has been planned for some time but was given added impetus by concerns raised by a small group of Fellows of the Society that older documents designed to challenge some of the common misrepresentations of the science were too narrow in their focus.

Climate Change
New guide to science of climate change

The Royal Society has a continuous process of review – it is known as the scientific method. New data, observations, ideas, calculations etc. are provided continually, are reviewed, and either rejected or incorporated in the published literature. In addition, there are public discussion meetings or conferences at which the status of any developing subject is re-assessed and debated. Climate science is like any other active area of science, and new technical publications appear continually. There were two open discussion meetings (Greenhouse gases in the Earth system: setting the agenda to 2030 and Handling uncertainty in science) which concerned climate science at the Royal Society earlier this year, and a new volume of Phil. Trans, is in preparation. It is this very extensive process, and the large accumulated scientific literature, that determine the level of certainty in a scientific subject at any given time. All this published information is readily available to anyone who wishes to read it.

If a subject is of great topical significance and public consequence, the Royal Society produces documents to explain the current status of the scientific field in a manner accessible to a wide public audience. A number of such documents have been issued about climate science to go alongside the scientific literature. These documents reflect both the scientific knowledge available/consensus at the time, and the particular concerns of the time which suggested the need for the document.

Statements by the Society have to be approved by the Council, following a review which is independent of the group of people who draft the document. The documents are generally drafted by experts in the subject, who are fully familiar with the extensive scientific literature, and with the scientific debates which led to the current status.

The Royal Society is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components. This had been planned for some time (it is 3 years since the last such document), but was given extra impetus by a number of Fellows who were concerned that older public facing documents could be interpreted as an unwillingness to accept dissenting views. This is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS. The new document will supersede previous documents.

In addition to the working group that drafts the document and the separate review for Council, two other groups have been charged with providing independent input to the draft document. There is a wide spectrum of views across the Fellowship – as should be expected – and so the membership of these two groups differs and covers a broad range. There is representation on all the groups involved of Fellows who have expressed concerns. The membership overall is mainly of Fellows who are expert in climate science.

It is intended that, providing Council approves it, the new document will be published this summer, with full details. At that point, media will be informed and invited to comment and question as may be required.

There is a wide variety of views across the Fellowship on any active area of science, not just climate science, and this diversity is an essential component of the testing that scientific knowledge must always undergo. Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon. The enormous beneficial impact of science over the last 350 years is testament to the success of this balancing of uncertainty with action in the application of science.

Copyright © 2009 Royal Society

(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.)

Go away little boy you bother us.

 

[RollingThunder]

It appears that the Royal Society has figured out that it was backing the wrong pony and is going to review its AGW statements...and it is going to have SCEPTICS on the panel oh my!

Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming – Telegraph Blogs

I told you old fraud...the end is nigh!

You are a really delusional fruitcake, walleyed.

Here's what the Royal Society actual said in their statements, as opposed to the denier cult delusional conclusions you draw from some newspaper articles.

Royal Society to publish new guide to the science of climate change
Published Date: 28 May 2010
(excerpts)

Martin Rees added:”It is three years since the Society published a document specifically designed to help the general public get a full understanding of climate change. Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change. In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the Fellowship of the Society there are differing views. Our guide will be based on expert views backed up by sound scientific evidence.”

The new guide has been planned for some time but was given added impetus by concerns raised by a small group of Fellows of the Society that older documents designed to challenge some of the common misrepresentations of the science were too narrow in their focus.

Climate Change
New guide to science of climate change

The Royal Society has a continuous process of review – it is known as the scientific method. New data, observations, ideas, calculations etc. are provided continually, are reviewed, and either rejected or incorporated in the published literature. In addition, there are public discussion meetings or conferences at which the status of any developing subject is re-assessed and debated. Climate science is like any other active area of science, and new technical publications appear continually. There were two open discussion meetings (Greenhouse gases in the Earth system: setting the agenda to 2030 and Handling uncertainty in science) which concerned climate science at the Royal Society earlier this year, and a new volume of Phil. Trans, is in preparation. It is this very extensive process, and the large accumulated scientific literature, that determine the level of certainty in a scientific subject at any given time. All this published information is readily available to anyone who wishes to read it.

If a subject is of great topical significance and public consequence, the Royal Society produces documents to explain the current status of the scientific field in a manner accessible to a wide public audience. A number of such documents have been issued about climate science to go alongside the scientific literature. These documents reflect both the scientific knowledge available/consensus at the time, and the particular concerns of the time which suggested the need for the document.

Statements by the Society have to be approved by the Council, following a review which is independent of the group of people who draft the document. The documents are generally drafted by experts in the subject, who are fully familiar with the extensive scientific literature, and with the scientific debates which led to the current status.

The Royal Society is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components. This had been planned for some time (it is 3 years since the last such document), but was given extra impetus by a number of Fellows who were concerned that older public facing documents could be interpreted as an unwillingness to accept dissenting views. This is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS. The new document will supersede previous documents.

In addition to the working group that drafts the document and the separate review for Council, two other groups have been charged with providing independent input to the draft document. There is a wide spectrum of views across the Fellowship – as should be expected – and so the membership of these two groups differs and covers a broad range. There is representation on all the groups involved of Fellows who have expressed concerns. The membership overall is mainly of Fellows who are expert in climate science.

It is intended that, providing Council approves it, the new document will be published this summer, with full details. At that point, media will be informed and invited to comment and question as may be required.

There is a wide variety of views across the Fellowship on any active area of science, not just climate science, and this diversity is an essential component of the testing that scientific knowledge must always undergo. Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon. The enormous beneficial impact of science over the last 350 years is testament to the success of this balancing of uncertainty with action in the application of science.

Copyright © 2009 Royal Society

(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.)

Go away little boy you bother us.

I'm sure it does bother you a lot when I show everybody what an idiot you are, walleyedretard. Your whole thread here is pure bullshit. As is your hilarious claim to be a member of the Royal Society. You are a brainless delusional cretin with no understanding of science, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. It seems unlikely you even graduated from high school, given the state of your knowledge.

Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change.

This is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS.

 

[gslack]

TRollingblunder is going to cry and spam now.....LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

TRollingblunder is going to cry and spam now.....

It's actually been sounding like you are the one crying and having a hissyfit, g'tard. You're always spamming your drivel.

I bet it just kills you when I show what delusional lying idiots you and walleyed are.

 

[gslack]

TRollingblunder is going to cry and spam now.....

It's actually been sounding like you are the one crying and having a hissyfit, g'tard. You're always spamming your drivel.

I bet it just kills you when I show what delusional lying idiots you and walleyed are.

Kills me? HAHHAHAHAAHAHAHA!....

First tool, I didn't go crying to the mods about you idiot.. One of them followed my link... Second I even told the mod not to bother with you because its a badge you should wear... So knuckle dragger, there is the difference between you and I... one of us has some class, and its not you....

Second, the only delusional lying idiot here is you and your sock/proxy/troll army... You repeat the same lie and pretend it wasn't just busted all to hell a day or two ago....

 

[westwall]

TRollingblunder is going to cry and spam now.....

It's actually been sounding like you are the one crying and having a hissyfit, g'tard. You're always spamming your drivel.

I bet it just kills you when I show what delusional lying idiots you and walleyed are.

Once again,

I told you what the parameters were for you to reenter adult society. Until you apologise
you don't exist.

 

[Old Rocks]

It appears that the Royal Society has figured out that it was backing the wrong pony and is going to review its AGW statements...and it is going to have SCEPTICS on the panel oh my!

Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming – Telegraph Blogs

I told you old fraud...the end is nigh!

You are a really delusional fruitcake, walleyed.

Here's what the Royal Society actual said in their statements, as opposed to the denier cult delusional conclusions you draw from some newspaper articles.

Royal Society to publish new guide to the science of climate change
Published Date: 28 May 2010
(excerpts)

Martin Rees added:”It is three years since the Society published a document specifically designed to help the general public get a full understanding of climate change. Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change. In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the Fellowship of the Society there are differing views. Our guide will be based on expert views backed up by sound scientific evidence.”

The new guide has been planned for some time but was given added impetus by concerns raised by a small group of Fellows of the Society that older documents designed to challenge some of the common misrepresentations of the science were too narrow in their focus.

Climate Change
New guide to science of climate change

The Royal Society has a continuous process of review – it is known as the scientific method. New data, observations, ideas, calculations etc. are provided continually, are reviewed, and either rejected or incorporated in the published literature. In addition, there are public discussion meetings or conferences at which the status of any developing subject is re-assessed and debated. Climate science is like any other active area of science, and new technical publications appear continually. There were two open discussion meetings (Greenhouse gases in the Earth system: setting the agenda to 2030 and Handling uncertainty in science) which concerned climate science at the Royal Society earlier this year, and a new volume of Phil. Trans, is in preparation. It is this very extensive process, and the large accumulated scientific literature, that determine the level of certainty in a scientific subject at any given time. All this published information is readily available to anyone who wishes to read it.

If a subject is of great topical significance and public consequence, the Royal Society produces documents to explain the current status of the scientific field in a manner accessible to a wide public audience. A number of such documents have been issued about climate science to go alongside the scientific literature. These documents reflect both the scientific knowledge available/consensus at the time, and the particular concerns of the time which suggested the need for the document.

Statements by the Society have to be approved by the Council, following a review which is independent of the group of people who draft the document. The documents are generally drafted by experts in the subject, who are fully familiar with the extensive scientific literature, and with the scientific debates which led to the current status.

The Royal Society is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components. This had been planned for some time (it is 3 years since the last such document), but was given extra impetus by a number of Fellows who were concerned that older public facing documents could be interpreted as an unwillingness to accept dissenting views. This is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS. The new document will supersede previous documents.

In addition to the working group that drafts the document and the separate review for Council, two other groups have been charged with providing independent input to the draft document. There is a wide spectrum of views across the Fellowship – as should be expected – and so the membership of these two groups differs and covers a broad range. There is representation on all the groups involved of Fellows who have expressed concerns. The membership overall is mainly of Fellows who are expert in climate science.

It is intended that, providing Council approves it, the new document will be published this summer, with full details. At that point, media will be informed and invited to comment and question as may be required.

There is a wide variety of views across the Fellowship on any active area of science, not just climate science, and this diversity is an essential component of the testing that scientific knowledge must always undergo. Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon. The enormous beneficial impact of science over the last 350 years is testament to the success of this balancing of uncertainty with action in the application of science.

Copyright © 2009 Royal Society

(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.)

As I stated before, this will lead to a stronger statement, calling for stronger action on this issue. The Royal Society, and all the other National Academies of Sciences of more than two dozen nations have called for stronger action on the issue of global warming and climate change. But ol' Walleyes and Suckeeee...... believe that their ideologically driven nonsense is superior to these world class scientists. Truly delusional.

 

[fyrenza]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html

...the scientists are confidently making proclamations to journalists, jetting to conferences and plotting revenge against those who question the dangers of global warming. When a journal publishes a skeptic’s paper, the scientists e-mail one another to ignore it. They focus instead on retaliation against the journal and the editor, a project that is breezily added to the agenda of their next meeting: “Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.

The "scientists" that discounted and discarded the parts of the findings that didn't agree with them are nothing but embezzlers,

stealing grant monies and lying about their results, in order to keep the gravy train rolling.

If the Royal Society is willing to accept their lies, and slip-shod research, it has lost all credibility and needs to close up shop, imho.

"Scientists" that cannot be depended upon to follow Scientific Procedure, aren't REALLY scientists ~ they're con-men.

 

[RollingThunder]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html

...the scientists are confidently making proclamations to journalists, jetting to conferences and plotting revenge against those who question the dangers of global warming. When a journal publishes a skeptic’s paper, the scientists e-mail one another to ignore it. They focus instead on retaliation against the journal and the editor, a project that is breezily added to the agenda of their next meeting: “Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.

The "scientists" that discounted and discarded the parts of the findings that didn't agree with them are nothing but embezzlers,

stealing grant monies and lying about their results, in order to keep the gravy train rolling.

If the Royal Society is willing to accept their lies, and slip-shod research, it has lost all credibility and needs to close up shop, imho.

"Scientists" that cannot be depended upon to follow Scientific Procedure, aren't REALLY scientists ~ they're con-men.

The climate scientists did not "discard" any valid scientific "findings". They did rightfully reject the pseudo-science distortions of the facts that the stooges for the oil corps were trying to push. You've fallen for the lying propaganda of the fossil fuel industry and you have no idea what is actually happening. It is you and the other deniers who have no credibility and no real science to back up your denial of the conclusions of the world scientific community regarding AGW..

 

[gslack]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html

...the scientists are confidently making proclamations to journalists, jetting to conferences and plotting revenge against those who question the dangers of global warming. When a journal publishes a skeptic’s paper, the scientists e-mail one another to ignore it. They focus instead on retaliation against the journal and the editor, a project that is breezily added to the agenda of their next meeting: “Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.

The "scientists" that discounted and discarded the parts of the findings that didn't agree with them are nothing but embezzlers,

stealing grant monies and lying about their results, in order to keep the gravy train rolling.

If the Royal Society is willing to accept their lies, and slip-shod research, it has lost all credibility and needs to close up shop, imho.

"Scientists" that cannot be depended upon to follow Scientific Procedure, aren't REALLY scientists ~ they're con-men.

The climate scientists did not "discard" any valid scientific "findings". They did rightfully reject the pseudo-science distortions of the facts that the stooges for the oil corps were trying to push. You've fallen for the lying propaganda of the fossil fuel industry and you have no idea what is actually happening.

Lying propaganda????

like the way you repeat the same already disproved garbage over and again? how many time we going to have to see the same things from you?

Better come back with a new sock tool.. this ones busted already...

 

[westwall]

It appears that the Royal Society has figured out that it was backing the wrong pony and is going to review its AGW statements...and it is going to have SCEPTICS on the panel oh my!

Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming – Telegraph Blogs

I told you old fraud...the end is nigh!

You are a really delusional fruitcake, walleyed.

Here's what the Royal Society actual said in their statements, as opposed to the denier cult delusional conclusions you draw from some newspaper articles.

Royal Society to publish new guide to the science of climate change
Published Date: 28 May 2010
(excerpts)

Martin Rees added:”It is three years since the Society published a document specifically designed to help the general public get a full understanding of climate change. Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change. In the current environment we believe this new guide will be very timely. Lots of people are asking questions, indeed even within the Fellowship of the Society there are differing views. Our guide will be based on expert views backed up by sound scientific evidence.”

The new guide has been planned for some time but was given added impetus by concerns raised by a small group of Fellows of the Society that older documents designed to challenge some of the common misrepresentations of the science were too narrow in their focus.

Climate Change
New guide to science of climate change

The Royal Society has a continuous process of review – it is known as the scientific method. New data, observations, ideas, calculations etc. are provided continually, are reviewed, and either rejected or incorporated in the published literature. In addition, there are public discussion meetings or conferences at which the status of any developing subject is re-assessed and debated. Climate science is like any other active area of science, and new technical publications appear continually. There were two open discussion meetings (Greenhouse gases in the Earth system: setting the agenda to 2030 and Handling uncertainty in science) which concerned climate science at the Royal Society earlier this year, and a new volume of Phil. Trans, is in preparation. It is this very extensive process, and the large accumulated scientific literature, that determine the level of certainty in a scientific subject at any given time. All this published information is readily available to anyone who wishes to read it.

If a subject is of great topical significance and public consequence, the Royal Society produces documents to explain the current status of the scientific field in a manner accessible to a wide public audience. A number of such documents have been issued about climate science to go alongside the scientific literature. These documents reflect both the scientific knowledge available/consensus at the time, and the particular concerns of the time which suggested the need for the document.

Statements by the Society have to be approved by the Council, following a review which is independent of the group of people who draft the document. The documents are generally drafted by experts in the subject, who are fully familiar with the extensive scientific literature, and with the scientific debates which led to the current status.

The Royal Society is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components. This had been planned for some time (it is 3 years since the last such document), but was given extra impetus by a number of Fellows who were concerned that older public facing documents could be interpreted as an unwillingness to accept dissenting views. This is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS. The new document will supersede previous documents.

In addition to the working group that drafts the document and the separate review for Council, two other groups have been charged with providing independent input to the draft document. There is a wide spectrum of views across the Fellowship – as should be expected – and so the membership of these two groups differs and covers a broad range. There is representation on all the groups involved of Fellows who have expressed concerns. The membership overall is mainly of Fellows who are expert in climate science.

It is intended that, providing Council approves it, the new document will be published this summer, with full details. At that point, media will be informed and invited to comment and question as may be required.

There is a wide variety of views across the Fellowship on any active area of science, not just climate science, and this diversity is an essential component of the testing that scientific knowledge must always undergo. Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon. The enormous beneficial impact of science over the last 350 years is testament to the success of this balancing of uncertainty with action in the application of science.

Copyright © 2009 Royal Society

(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.)

As I stated before, this will lead to a stronger statement, calling for stronger action on this issue. The Royal Society, and all the other National Academies of Sciences of more than two dozen nations have called for stronger action on the issue of global warming and climate change. But ol' Walleyes and Suckeeee...... believe that their ideologically driven nonsense is superior to these world class scientists. Truly delusional.

Old Fraud it would be hard to make a stronger statement than they allready had....when you declare a theory "settled" there is only one way to go...and that is down.

 

[RollingThunder]

The climate scientists did not "discard" any valid scientific "findings". They did rightfully reject the pseudo-science distortions of the facts that the stooges for the oil corps were trying to push. You've fallen for the lying propaganda of the fossil fuel industry and you have no idea what is actually happening.

Lying propaganda????

like the way you repeat the same already disproved garbage over and again? how many time we going to have to see the same things from you?

Better come back with a new sock tool.. this ones busted already...

You have this persistent delusion that you've "disproved" something, g'sock, but that is as false as the rest of the bullshit you post. The fact is you've never managed to disprove anything, mostly because you're a flaming retard who doesn't know anything about science in general or climate science in particular.

The Royal Society consists of competent scientists who comprehend the evidence showing that the current abrupt global warming and climate changes are being driven by mankind's carbon emissions and deforestation practices and their new statement is going to reflect that understanding. This thread is another example of the propaganda hoaxes you dirtbags try to deceive people with. I conclusively demonstrated that the actual statements of the RS are exactly opposite to the lying (misspelled) premise of this thread - "The warmers are losing teh Royal Society! "

Nothing in recent developments has changed or weakened the underpinning science of climate change.

This is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS.


I'll say it once again, slack-jawed, the only thing "busted" around here is your pitiful excuse for a brain.

 

[gslack]

The climate scientists did not "discard" any valid scientific "findings". They did rightfully reject the pseudo-science distortions of the facts that the stooges for the oil corps were trying to push. You've fallen for the lying propaganda of the fossil fuel industry and you have no idea what is actually happening.

Lying propaganda????

like the way you repeat the same already disproved garbage over and again? how many time we going to have to see the same things from you?

Better come back with a new sock tool.. this ones busted already...

You have this persistent delusion that you've "disproved" something, g'sock, but that is as false as the rest of the bullshit you post. The fact is you've never managed to disprove anything, mostly because you're a flaming retard who doesn't know anything about science in general or climate science in particular.

Oh really? LOL what happened in all your other threads tool? how about that pesky little logical conundrum regarding ocean acidification?

 

[RollingThunder]

Lying propaganda????

like the way you repeat the same already disproved garbage over and again? how many time we going to have to see the same things from you?

Better come back with a new sock tool.. this ones busted already...

You have this persistent delusion that you've "disproved" something, g'sock, but that is as false as the rest of the bullshit you post. The fact is you've never managed to disprove anything, mostly because you're a flaming retard who doesn't know anything about science in general or climate science in particular.

Oh really? LOL what happened in all your other threads tool? how about that pesky little logical conundrum regarding ocean acidification?

That's just another example of your ignorance of any real science, g'tard. Ocean acidification is an observed reality and your half-witted pseudo-logic has no bearing on that.

 

[gslack]

You have this persistent delusion that you've "disproved" something, g'sock, but that is as false as the rest of the bullshit you post. The fact is you've never managed to disprove anything, mostly because you're a flaming retard who doesn't know anything about science in general or climate science in particular.

Oh really? LOL what happened in all your other threads tool? how about that pesky little logical conundrum regarding ocean acidification?

That's just another example of your ignorance of any real science, g'tard. Ocean acidification is an observed reality and your half-witted pseudo-logic has no bearing on that.

Pseudo-logic? LOL okay....

So unless it agrees with you no matter how logical, reasonable, intellectual factual, correct and accurate it may be, its all nonsense..... Got it....