Royal Society special issue details ‘hellish vision’ of 7°F (4°C) world — which we ma

[CrusaderFrank]

Walleyes, you simply have proven that you will lie without shame to vilify your betters.

"Betters"? There's that elitist bullshit again. Meanwhile, all you have done to prove yourself "better" than anyone else is mindlessly parrot the opinions you're handed.

Daveboy, your reading comprehension is in need of a tuneup. Our faux geologist was vilifying, and continues to vilify, the real scientists in the AGU.

As far as mindlessly parroting talking points, that is all you have done. You are a true Conservative. Never research, just take talking points from drugged out radio jocks and pretend that they are truths from heaven.

Is Phil Jones a "real scientist"?

"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes..."

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb ass, it has already been pointed out that the quote is out of context. Out of context quotes are lying on the cheap.

 

[IanC]

Dumb ass, it has already been pointed out that the quote is out of context. Out of context quotes are lying on the cheap.

The IPCC summary continues to overstate the certainty of many aspects of climate change. Jones correctly stated that warming was not statistically significant but incorrectly added "but only just". It is not close to either the 95 or even the 90 per cent confidence level. Even with the 'adjusted' data.

 

[IanC]

What I meant to say was "The new head of the AGU communications is an ENGLISH MAJOR!" I left off the communications part but a paragon of honesty such as you would never understand a simple error.

Yeah?

So what? His role is to communicate, not do the science, but make it understandable to people who aren't scientists.

That is what communications people do, after all.

My guess would be the head of the department for security of that organization is probably an expert in security and not a scientist, too.

Too funny. Would you put the head of security on the board of directors?

The interesting part is that the new director (in charge of communications) was appointed by the president rather than elected by the members. Why is the publicity liason on the board of directors at all? Do you think this appointee will have allegiance to the president or to the AGU in general? Was this guy an AGU member in good standing before becoming a director? The whole thing seems shady to me but I really don't know about their politics.

Of course there was the case last summer where a noted physicist complained openly that the membership of the american Physical Society was basically shut out of decision making when it came to the public statement put out by the Society on global warming. I wonder if that group has politically appointed directors as well ?

 

[IanC]

And all of the principles are heavilly invested in the fraud so big effing deal. That is no more a legitimate argument than saying cold fusion is real it just needs a few tweaks. The new head of the AGU is an ENGLISH MAJOR! He was placed there because he can argue better than the dolt who was there before. So how do you like them apples olfraud. The AGU once a very well respected scientific organization has gone the propaganda route to try and win back the lost ground....they didn't pick a scientist!

LAUGHABLE!

Walleyes, you have really hit the limit in your damned lies. This is the present President of the American Geophysical Union.
The TAO project: Michael McPhaden - Curriculum Vita

ABBREVIATED CURRICULUM VITAE
Click here for complete CV

Michael James McPhaden
NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, Washington 98115
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (206) 526-6783
Fax: (206) 526-6744


PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1998-present Senior Scientist, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington
1993-present Affiliate Professor, School of Oceanography, University of Washington
1990-present Senior Fellow, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington
1990-1993 Affiliate Associate Professor, School of Oceanography, University of Washington
1988-1990 Affiliate Assistant Professor, School of Oceanography, University of Washington
1987-present Senior Fellow, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii
1986-1998 Oceanographer (various ranks), Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, Seattle, Washington
1984-1986 Research Assistant Professor, School of Oceanography, University of Washington
1982-1984 Visiting Research Scientist, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington
1980-1982 Research Scientist, Oceanography Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
EDUCATION
1980 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Ph.D., Physical Oceanography; Dissertation title: “Models of the Equatorial Ocean Circulation”
1973 State University of New York at Buffalo, B.S., Physics, magna cum laude

damned lies! get serious Old Rocks. WW was guilty of poor wording but hardly guilty of lying. the board of directors chose a new director of communications who is a strongly left leaning english major with a history of attacking right wing politics but little experience in doing science. I suppose this is a development of last month's battle cry of sending in hundreds of scientists to debate the skeptics which was quickly rescinded when they were asked when the first public debate was to be held. I can understand hiring a public relations officer but putting a non-scientist on the board of directors is absurd.

Fuck you Old Rocks! I don't really care about neg reps but there is something seriously wrong with your thinking to consider this post worthy of one.

 

[IanC]

this is the original article where I heard about the 'english major' being added to the AGU board of directors. it also discusses the 'only 6% of scientists are republican' meme.

Consider that the opinion poll that Sarewitz cited which found that only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republicans has some very important fine print -- specifically that the scientists that it surveyed were all members of the AAAS. I do not have detailed demographics information, but based on my experience I would guess that AAAS membership is dominated by university and government scientists. The opinion poll thus does not tell us much about US scientists as a whole, but rather something about one scientific institution -- AAAS. And the poll indicates that AAAS is largely an association that does not include Republicans.

Sarewitz wonders about how this situation might have developed. One factor might be seen in a recent action of the American Geophysical Union -- another big US science association: AGU recently appointed Chris Mooney to its Board. I am sure that Chris is a fine fellow, but appointing an English major who has written divisively about the "Republican War on Science" to help AGU oversee "science communication" is more than a little ironic, and unlikely to attract many Republican scientists to the institution, perhaps even having the opposite effect. To the extent that AAAS and AGU endorse the Democratic policy agenda, or just appear to do so, it reflects their role not as arbiters of knowledge claims, but rather as political actors.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Political Affiliations of Scientists

 

[Old Rocks]

And so why are the British Scientists, Russian Scientists, Chinese Scientists, German Scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, AGW is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

 

[DiveCon]

And so why are the British Scientists, Russian Scientists, Chinese Scientists, German Scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, AGW is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

for the same reason the US pro-AGW are

MONEY

 

[daveman]

Walleyes, you simply have proven that you will lie without shame to vilify your betters.

"Betters"? There's that elitist bullshit again. Meanwhile, all you have done to prove yourself "better" than anyone else is mindlessly parrot the opinions you're handed.

Daveboy, your reading comprehension is in need of a tuneup. Our faux geologist was vilifying, and continues to vilify, the real scientists in the AGU.

As far as mindlessly parroting talking points, that is all you have done. You are a true Conservative. Never research, just take talking points from drugged out radio jocks and pretend that they are truths from heaven.

Ironic, that, coming from a cultist.

 

[daveman]

And so why are the British Scientists, Russian Scientists, Chinese Scientists, German Scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, AGW is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

Probably because they're all looking at the same distorted data.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. And AGW is a stacked deck.

 

[DiveCon]

and so why are the british scientists, russian scientists, chinese scientists, german scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, agw is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

probably because they're all looking at the same distorted data.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. And agw is a stacked deck.

GIGO
i think you know what that means

 

[daveman]

and so why are the british scientists, russian scientists, chinese scientists, german scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, agw is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

probably because they're all looking at the same distorted data.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. And agw is a stacked deck.

GIGO
i think you know what that means

Indeed.

 

[skookerasbil]

And so why are the British Scientists, Russian Scientists, Chinese Scientists, German Scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, AGW is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

Good for the scientists

Evidently, the rest of the world doesnt care asshole..................and there is plenty of PROOF about that!!!

Rocks bro..........you're like the football linebacker who in a game where his team is down 49-0 wiht one minute to go, intercepts a pass and returns it for a touchdown and goes into hysterical celebration mode in the end zone!!

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=DiveCon;3093573]

and so why are the british scientists, russian scientists, chinese scientists, german scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, agw is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

probably because they're all looking at the same distorted data.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. And agw is a stacked deck.

GIGO
i think you know what that means

[/QUOTE]

One of the climategate emails described the attitude of the climate science elite and their lack of cooperation and openess. "why should I give you my data when you are just going to try and find something wrong with it?". talk about your anti-science

 

[westwall]

And so why are the British Scientists, Russian Scientists, Chinese Scientists, German Scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, AGW is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

Please link to where they are saying this. All of the Russians I know are saying quite the opposite.

 

[westwall]

[ QUOTE=DiveCon;3093573]

and so why are the british scientists, russian scientists, chinese scientists, german scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, agw is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

probably because they're all looking at the same distorted data.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. And agw is a stacked deck.

GIGO
i think you know what that means

One of the climategate emails described the attitude of the climate science elite and their lack of cooperation and openess. "why should I give you my data when you are just going to try and find something wrong with it?". talk about your anti-science[/QUOTE]




Exactly! That is the antithesis of science. I just attended a fairly interesting seminar at the conference by Joel Barker of Ohio State where he was describing a mummified forrest found north of the Arctic circle and how he hopes to study it in more depth to figure out how the plants react to climate change. Of course the mere fact that trees actually existed north of the Arctic Circle seems to not really enter into their addled brains (I did ask about the significance of that so olfraud you'll be able to see me in action when the video comes out, I must say I look good in a suit!) instead he was all about the apparent rapid freeze that mummified them. This is the furthest north that a forest has been discovered but there are at least ten others that I know of that are north of the Circle.

I am allways amazed at the lack of real interest in really understanding what they are loking at. If it doesn't bear on the "study of AGW" then the science doesn't matter. They still havn't gotten it through their pointy little heads that if you do good science it is useable everywhere and for anything. Instead they pervert what they do.

For those who don't know the Arctic Circle is considered the "tree line". No trees currently exist north of the Circle.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure Walleyes, sure. And the head of the AGU is an English Major. I suppose the head of the Royal Society majored in basket weaving.

 

[Old Rocks]

And so why are the British Scientists, Russian Scientists, Chinese Scientists, German Scientists, and virtually all the scientists involved in this research coming to the same conclusions? Namely, AGW is real, and the changes are occuring far faster than they thought that they would.

Please link to where they are saying this. All of the Russians I know are saying quite the opposite.

Sure, dumbass.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

If Russian scientists don't believe in man-made global warming, why does the Russian Academy of Sciences? - Yahoo! Answers

If Russian scientists don't believe in man-made global warming, why does the Russian Academy of Sciences?
Certain individuals are trying to argue that Russian scientists don't think humans are causing global warming. I don't know why we particularly care about Russian scientists, but regardless, the Russian Academy of Sciences signed onto a statement in 2007 which included this wording:

"In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasising that climate change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group 1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC. Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions."

How does this jive with the denier claim that "No Russian Scientists are a Part of the "Global Warming" Consensus"? Why are deniers making this obviously false claim?
2 years ago Report Abuse Additional Details
http://www.nationalacademies.org/include…
2 years ago

antarctic - interesting point.

"Russia's scientific brain drain, a feature of the Yeltsin years when more than 200,000 researchers, half the total, emigrated to western institutions desperate to buy their expertise, has left the system impoverished and tattered."
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/st…

"This money is, of course, insufficient for Russia to become the world's leading scientific power but with its help we can already meet, albeit only a few, but major, significant, priority objectives for the country," [Putin] said.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/975…

Despite the country's scientific struggles, their Academy of Sciences (best scientists) still agrees with AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Old Rocks is from the Goebbels "Big Lie" School of Climatology, if you keep repeating that it's real it becomes real without ever setting foot in a laboratory