Saving Our Colleges From the Leftists.

[regent]

At one time colleges were for the sons of gentlemen, their purpose, to learn how to be gentlemen. It was not to teach a trade nor even a profession. Doctors and lawyers learned medicine and law from doctors and lawyers. Then it changed and today many colleges are thought to be almost like a trade school to teach a form of employment. I remember well the head of the University of Chicago, Hutchins regarding the GI Bill of Rights at the end of WWII, remarking how colleges, with these vets, would now become like hobo jungles with the vets the hobos. Such was the attitude of the schools for gentlemen. There is still this desire of some to keep the lower classes out of the colleges and universities. In fact, keeping the lower classes out of colleges is a job, an easy job, for many today.
This is a whole new problem for school and politicians today.

 

[forkup]

Did you actually post this?
"Do the same and PROOF me wrong."?????????

And this?
"Now show me exacty where he sais it's a conspiracy?"

Worse than wrong......stupid.

lol politicalchic I'll enlighten you. First off, that's a dodge if I ever saw one and second. I'm a bad speller and most importantly I'm a Dutch speaker and I think I can safely say I hold me own in a foreign language. So if the only thing you can throw at my feet is 'your spelling is atrocious' the rest of your arguments can't be real good.

English is my second language....what's your point?

Well good for you, how about PROVING me wrong. Where in the article, does it say climate change is a hoax? Show me a paragraph, or even several I don't care but show me?

Gads....you certainly are a slow learner.

I provided the very words of a 'global warming scientist' stating that there was no science behind the scam.

I reminded of the East Anglia emails that admitted the fabrication

I noted the fact that there hasn't been any warming for two decades.


Clearly, You're about as likely to learn as mayflies are to see Christmas.

wow still not quoting the article in any way. Since a big piece of your argument is based on it saying that it's a hoax you sure seem to have problem finding actual words to substanciate your claim. No worries I'll help
Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it. One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks - in other words, how scientific "knowledge" interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality.

Two scientists - one a climate physicist, the other a biologist - have written a book arguing that the warming currently observed around the world is a function of a 1,500-year "unstoppable" cycle in solar energy. The central thesis is linked to evidence that most people would recognise as being generated by science. But is this book really about science?

It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare.

This, of course, is not what the fourth assessment report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a few weeks ago. The report from its climate science working group concluded that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years has been caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and that, depending on our actions now to slow the growth of emissions, warming by 2100 will probably be between about 1.5C and 6C.

The upper end of this range is almost an order of magnitude larger than the warming that Singer and Avery suggest is caused by the 1,500-year cycle. So is this a fight between scientific truth and error? This seems to be how Singer and Avery would like to present it - "science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false".

Means of inquiry

At one level, it is as simple as this. Science as a means of inquiry into how the world works has been so successful because it has developed a series of principles, methods and techniques for being able to make such judgments. For example, we now understand the major transmission routes for HIV/Aids, that smoking injures health, and that wearing seat belts saves lives.

And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it.

Advertisement
So far so good. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society.

That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many new ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today.

Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

But our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to change as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodological rule book that science has painstakingly written over many generations of experience.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.
WELL apperently can't post the entire article you have the link. Point out where he sais it please?

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis inThe Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36] this is from wikepedia and talks about your e-mails
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and third 1 article about 2 groups of scientists bikkering about how to interpret data, one group being admittedly libertarian doesn't sound like strong proof either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. "On campuses there are speech codes, ...."free speech zones," and a host of "anti-discrimination" policies that discriminate against people who dissent from lefty groupthink. Christian and conservative groups have been denied official university status by student government organizations for holding views not in line with liberal dogma.

The illiberal left's attempts to control the public debate are frequently buttressed by a parade of childish grievances. They portray life's vagaries as violations of their basic human rights and demand the world stop traumatizing them..."
Kirsten Powers, "The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech"



Can you conceive of what universities have become under Liberal domination? Open debate is out of the question.

In fact, they feel it necessary to protect the delicate minds of their minions from having to consider anything outside of the orthodoxy!

"They insist colleges provide "trigger warning" on syllabi to prevent them from stumbling upon a piece of literature that might deal with controversial issues...that could upset them.....that will invoke symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)....

....as reading The Great Gatsby, seeing a statue of an underwear-clad man, or passing an anti-abortion demonstration.....[it might be] lethal to their psychological well being."
Powers, Op. Cit., p. 6



The universities may be simply too far gone to reform....or even save.

 

[forkup]

lol politicalchic I'll enlighten you. First off, that's a dodge if I ever saw one and second. I'm a bad speller and most importantly I'm a Dutch speaker and I think I can safely say I hold me own in a foreign language. So if the only thing you can throw at my feet is 'your spelling is atrocious' the rest of your arguments can't be real good.

English is my second language....what's your point?

Well good for you, how about PROVING me wrong. Where in the article, does it say climate change is a hoax? Show me a paragraph, or even several I don't care but show me?

Gads....you certainly are a slow learner.

I provided the very words of a 'global warming scientist' stating that there was no science behind the scam.

I reminded of the East Anglia emails that admitted the fabrication

I noted the fact that there hasn't been any warming for two decades.


Clearly, You're about as likely to learn as mayflies are to see Christmas.

wow still not quoting the article in any way. Since a big piece of your argument is based on it saying that it's a hoax you sure seem to have problem finding actual words to substanciate your claim. No worries I'll help
Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it. One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks - in other words, how scientific "knowledge" interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality.

Two scientists - one a climate physicist, the other a biologist - have written a book arguing that the warming currently observed around the world is a function of a 1,500-year "unstoppable" cycle in solar energy. The central thesis is linked to evidence that most people would recognise as being generated by science. But is this book really about science?

It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare.

This, of course, is not what the fourth assessment report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a few weeks ago. The report from its climate science working group concluded that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years has been caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and that, depending on our actions now to slow the growth of emissions, warming by 2100 will probably be between about 1.5C and 6C.

The upper end of this range is almost an order of magnitude larger than the warming that Singer and Avery suggest is caused by the 1,500-year cycle. So is this a fight between scientific truth and error? This seems to be how Singer and Avery would like to present it - "science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false".

Means of inquiry

At one level, it is as simple as this. Science as a means of inquiry into how the world works has been so successful because it has developed a series of principles, methods and techniques for being able to make such judgments. For example, we now understand the major transmission routes for HIV/Aids, that smoking injures health, and that wearing seat belts saves lives.

And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it.

Advertisement
So far so good. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society.

That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many new ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today.

Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

But our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to change as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodological rule book that science has painstakingly written over many generations of experience.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.
WELL apperently can't post the entire article you have the link. Point out where he sais it please?

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis inThe Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36] this is from wikepedia and talks about your e-mails
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and third 1 article about 2 groups of scientists bikkering about how to interpret data, one group being admittedly libertarian doesn't sound like strong proof either.

Global warming hiatus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
last of your argument. Read it if you dare.

 

[forkup]

12. "On campuses there are speech codes, ...."free speech zones," and a host of "anti-discrimination" policies that discriminate against people who dissent from lefty groupthink. Christian and conservative groups have been denied official university status by student government organizations for holding views not in line with liberal dogma.

The illiberal left's attempts to control the public debate are frequently buttressed by a parade of childish grievances. They portray life's vagaries as violations of their basic human rights and demand the world stop traumatizing them..."
Kirsten Powers, "The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech"



Can you conceive of what universities have become under Liberal domination? Open debate is out of the question.

In fact, they feel it necessary to protect the delicate minds of their minions from having to consider anything outside of the orthodoxy!

"They insist colleges provide "trigger warning" on syllabi to prevent them from stumbling upon a piece of literature that might deal with controversial issues...that could upset them.....that will invoke symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)....

....as reading The Great Gatsby, seeing a statue of an underwear-clad man, or passing an anti-abortion demonstration.....[it might be] lethal to their psychological well being."
Powers, Op. Cit., p. 6



The universities may be simply too far gone to reform....or even save.

I see you only like to respond to arguments you feel you can win. Guess liberal colleges aren't the only place open debate is out of the question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

lol politicalchic I'll enlighten you. First off, that's a dodge if I ever saw one and second. I'm a bad speller and most importantly I'm a Dutch speaker and I think I can safely say I hold me own in a foreign language. So if the only thing you can throw at my feet is 'your spelling is atrocious' the rest of your arguments can't be real good.

English is my second language....what's your point?

Well good for you, how about PROVING me wrong. Where in the article, does it say climate change is a hoax? Show me a paragraph, or even several I don't care but show me?

Gads....you certainly are a slow learner.

I provided the very words of a 'global warming scientist' stating that there was no science behind the scam.

I reminded of the East Anglia emails that admitted the fabrication

I noted the fact that there hasn't been any warming for two decades.


Clearly, You're about as likely to learn as mayflies are to see Christmas.

wow still not quoting the article in any way. Since a big piece of your argument is based on it saying that it's a hoax you sure seem to have problem finding actual words to substanciate your claim. No worries I'll help
Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it. One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks - in other words, how scientific "knowledge" interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality.

Two scientists - one a climate physicist, the other a biologist - have written a book arguing that the warming currently observed around the world is a function of a 1,500-year "unstoppable" cycle in solar energy. The central thesis is linked to evidence that most people would recognise as being generated by science. But is this book really about science?

It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare.

This, of course, is not what the fourth assessment report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a few weeks ago. The report from its climate science working group concluded that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years has been caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and that, depending on our actions now to slow the growth of emissions, warming by 2100 will probably be between about 1.5C and 6C.

The upper end of this range is almost an order of magnitude larger than the warming that Singer and Avery suggest is caused by the 1,500-year cycle. So is this a fight between scientific truth and error? This seems to be how Singer and Avery would like to present it - "science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false".

Means of inquiry

At one level, it is as simple as this. Science as a means of inquiry into how the world works has been so successful because it has developed a series of principles, methods and techniques for being able to make such judgments. For example, we now understand the major transmission routes for HIV/Aids, that smoking injures health, and that wearing seat belts saves lives.

And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it.

Advertisement
So far so good. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society.

That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many new ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today.

Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

But our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to change as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodological rule book that science has painstakingly written over many generations of experience.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.
WELL apperently can't post the entire article you have the link. Point out where he sais it please?

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis inThe Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36] this is from wikepedia and talks about your e-mails
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and third 1 article about 2 groups of scientists bikkering about how to interpret data, one group being admittedly libertarian doesn't sound like strong proof either.

And now for the truth:

1. The "Climategate" emails showed a deliberate and organized effort at the highest levels of taxpayer-funded academia and research institutions to promote a supposed scientific basis for Michal Mann, working at UVA from 1999 to 2005, what is called "the cause" in the emails.

a. Email #0810 from Michael Mann: "0810 Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause

1577: Jones: [FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well
hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in
the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station
data.

???? Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way
to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all
emails at the end of the process

3755: “It is really important that you don’t just copy or reproduce any
bits because it is not my proposal and it would be a court case in
theory if a similarity was noticed.” “but for GODS SAKE please respect
the sensitivity here and destroy the file immediately when finished and
please do not tell ANYBODY I sent this. Cheers Keith” ."


2495 Humphrey/DEFRA: I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political
interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on
climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be
a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.
Climategate…Again?


Again??
"...They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish."


2. The "cause" was the imposition of an agenda of spending, prohibition, and regulation embraced and demanded by a broad coalition of "global governance" proponents, and government and academic and scientific institutions. Under the guise of remedying some "global warming crisis," it is nothing more than the latest scam to market a utopian agenda of control, wealth transfers, and artificial scarcity sold as liberty, equality and plenty.
Horner, "The Liberal War on Transparency," p. 14-15.

What's the old saying about raising mushrooms?

Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em manure.

Seems the Left uses the same system on the electorate.


One more?


3. "UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'"
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

 

[forkup]

English is my second language....what's your point?

Well good for you, how about PROVING me wrong. Where in the article, does it say climate change is a hoax? Show me a paragraph, or even several I don't care but show me?

Gads....you certainly are a slow learner.

I provided the very words of a 'global warming scientist' stating that there was no science behind the scam.

I reminded of the East Anglia emails that admitted the fabrication

I noted the fact that there hasn't been any warming for two decades.


Clearly, You're about as likely to learn as mayflies are to see Christmas.

wow still not quoting the article in any way. Since a big piece of your argument is based on it saying that it's a hoax you sure seem to have problem finding actual words to substanciate your claim. No worries I'll help
Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it. One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks - in other words, how scientific "knowledge" interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality.

Two scientists - one a climate physicist, the other a biologist - have written a book arguing that the warming currently observed around the world is a function of a 1,500-year "unstoppable" cycle in solar energy. The central thesis is linked to evidence that most people would recognise as being generated by science. But is this book really about science?

It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare.

This, of course, is not what the fourth assessment report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a few weeks ago. The report from its climate science working group concluded that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years has been caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and that, depending on our actions now to slow the growth of emissions, warming by 2100 will probably be between about 1.5C and 6C.

The upper end of this range is almost an order of magnitude larger than the warming that Singer and Avery suggest is caused by the 1,500-year cycle. So is this a fight between scientific truth and error? This seems to be how Singer and Avery would like to present it - "science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false".

Means of inquiry

At one level, it is as simple as this. Science as a means of inquiry into how the world works has been so successful because it has developed a series of principles, methods and techniques for being able to make such judgments. For example, we now understand the major transmission routes for HIV/Aids, that smoking injures health, and that wearing seat belts saves lives.

And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it.

Advertisement
So far so good. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society.

That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many new ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today.

Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

But our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to change as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodological rule book that science has painstakingly written over many generations of experience.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.
WELL apperently can't post the entire article you have the link. Point out where he sais it please?

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis inThe Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36] this is from wikepedia and talks about your e-mails
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and third 1 article about 2 groups of scientists bikkering about how to interpret data, one group being admittedly libertarian doesn't sound like strong proof either.

And now for the truth:

1. The "Climategate" emails showed a deliberate and organized effort at the highest levels of taxpayer-funded academia and research institutions to promote a supposed scientific basis for Michal Mann, working at UVA from 1999 to 2005, what is called "the cause" in the emails.

a. Email #0810 from Michael Mann: "0810 Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause

1577: Jones: [FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well
hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in
the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station
data.

???? Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way
to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all
emails at the end of the process

3755: “It is really important that you don’t just copy or reproduce any
bits because it is not my proposal and it would be a court case in
theory if a similarity was noticed.” “but for GODS SAKE please respect
the sensitivity here and destroy the file immediately when finished and
please do not tell ANYBODY I sent this. Cheers Keith” ."


2495 Humphrey/DEFRA: I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political
interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on
climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be
a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.
Climategate…Again?


Again??
"...They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish."


2. The "cause" was the imposition of an agenda of spending, prohibition, and regulation embraced and demanded by a broad coalition of "global governance" proponents, and government and academic and scientific institutions. Under the guise of remedying some "global warming crisis," it is nothing more than the latest scam to market a utopian agenda of control, wealth transfers, and artificial scarcity sold as liberty, equality and plenty.
Horner, "The Liberal War on Transparency," p. 14-15.

What's the old saying about raising mushrooms?

Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em manure.

Seems the Left uses the same system on the electorate.


One more?


3. "UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'"
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Guess we can do this all day. If you insist that your right,altough the only way to proof it is by denying, evading, i can't stop you.
Just so where clear. As to your famous article, you're unable to point me to a place in that article where he so much as implies that global warming is hoax even though i asked you repeatedly to do so.
Your famous e-mail scandal was so scandelous that they fired noone. And the general consensus was that it was a plot to cast doubt.
And your famous 19 years without increase in global temperature is actually a period of 2001 to 2009 where the actual rise was less then expected.
In the meantime I've shown you graphs and visual tells from NASA that confirms global warming and the fact that global warming is supported by 97 percent of the scientific community.
One of us is indoctrinated you can guess who.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well good for you, how about PROVING me wrong. Where in the article, does it say climate change is a hoax? Show me a paragraph, or even several I don't care but show me?

Gads....you certainly are a slow learner.

I provided the very words of a 'global warming scientist' stating that there was no science behind the scam.

I reminded of the East Anglia emails that admitted the fabrication

I noted the fact that there hasn't been any warming for two decades.


Clearly, You're about as likely to learn as mayflies are to see Christmas.

wow still not quoting the article in any way. Since a big piece of your argument is based on it saying that it's a hoax you sure seem to have problem finding actual words to substanciate your claim. No worries I'll help
Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it. One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks - in other words, how scientific "knowledge" interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality.

Two scientists - one a climate physicist, the other a biologist - have written a book arguing that the warming currently observed around the world is a function of a 1,500-year "unstoppable" cycle in solar energy. The central thesis is linked to evidence that most people would recognise as being generated by science. But is this book really about science?

It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare.

This, of course, is not what the fourth assessment report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a few weeks ago. The report from its climate science working group concluded that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years has been caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and that, depending on our actions now to slow the growth of emissions, warming by 2100 will probably be between about 1.5C and 6C.

The upper end of this range is almost an order of magnitude larger than the warming that Singer and Avery suggest is caused by the 1,500-year cycle. So is this a fight between scientific truth and error? This seems to be how Singer and Avery would like to present it - "science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false".

Means of inquiry

At one level, it is as simple as this. Science as a means of inquiry into how the world works has been so successful because it has developed a series of principles, methods and techniques for being able to make such judgments. For example, we now understand the major transmission routes for HIV/Aids, that smoking injures health, and that wearing seat belts saves lives.

And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it.

Advertisement
So far so good. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society.

That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many new ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today.

Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

But our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to change as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodological rule book that science has painstakingly written over many generations of experience.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.
WELL apperently can't post the entire article you have the link. Point out where he sais it please?

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis inThe Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36] this is from wikepedia and talks about your e-mails
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and third 1 article about 2 groups of scientists bikkering about how to interpret data, one group being admittedly libertarian doesn't sound like strong proof either.

And now for the truth:

1. The "Climategate" emails showed a deliberate and organized effort at the highest levels of taxpayer-funded academia and research institutions to promote a supposed scientific basis for Michal Mann, working at UVA from 1999 to 2005, what is called "the cause" in the emails.

a. Email #0810 from Michael Mann: "0810 Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause

1577: Jones: [FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well
hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in
the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station
data.

???? Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way
to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all
emails at the end of the process

3755: “It is really important that you don’t just copy or reproduce any
bits because it is not my proposal and it would be a court case in
theory if a similarity was noticed.” “but for GODS SAKE please respect
the sensitivity here and destroy the file immediately when finished and
please do not tell ANYBODY I sent this. Cheers Keith” ."


2495 Humphrey/DEFRA: I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political
interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on
climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be
a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.
Climategate…Again?


Again??
"...They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish."


2. The "cause" was the imposition of an agenda of spending, prohibition, and regulation embraced and demanded by a broad coalition of "global governance" proponents, and government and academic and scientific institutions. Under the guise of remedying some "global warming crisis," it is nothing more than the latest scam to market a utopian agenda of control, wealth transfers, and artificial scarcity sold as liberty, equality and plenty.
Horner, "The Liberal War on Transparency," p. 14-15.

What's the old saying about raising mushrooms?

Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em manure.

Seems the Left uses the same system on the electorate.


One more?


3. "UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'"
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Guess we can do this all day. If you insist that your right,altough the only way to proof it is by denying, evading, i can't stop you.
Just so where clear. As to your famous article, you're unable to point me to a place in that article where he so much as implies that global warming is hoax even though i asked you repeatedly to do so.
Your famous e-mail scandal was so scandelous that they fired noone. And the general consensus was that it was a plot to cast doubt.
And your famous 19 years without increase in global temperature is actually a period of 2001 to 2009 where the actual rise was less then expected.
In the meantime I've shown you graphs and visual tells from NASA that confirms global warming and the fact that global warming is supported by 97 percent of the scientific community.
One of us is indoctrinated you can guess who.

No, we can't.

Let's just remind that I provided the actual emails.

And the admission....this: "...leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

OK...you're dismissed.

 

[forkup]

Gads....you certainly are a slow learner.

I provided the very words of a 'global warming scientist' stating that there was no science behind the scam.

I reminded of the East Anglia emails that admitted the fabrication

I noted the fact that there hasn't been any warming for two decades.


Clearly, You're about as likely to learn as mayflies are to see Christmas.

wow still not quoting the article in any way. Since a big piece of your argument is based on it saying that it's a hoax you sure seem to have problem finding actual words to substanciate your claim. No worries I'll help
Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it. One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks - in other words, how scientific "knowledge" interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality.

Two scientists - one a climate physicist, the other a biologist - have written a book arguing that the warming currently observed around the world is a function of a 1,500-year "unstoppable" cycle in solar energy. The central thesis is linked to evidence that most people would recognise as being generated by science. But is this book really about science?

It is written as a scientific text, with citations to peer-reviewed articles, deference to numbers, and adoption of technical terms. A precis of the argument put forward in the book by Fred Singer, an outspoken critic of the idea that humans are warming the planet, and Dennis Avery is that a well-established, 1,500-year cycle in the Earth's climate can explain most of the global warming observed in the last 100 years (0.7C), that this cycle is in some way linked to fluctuations in solar energy, and because there is nothing humans can do to affect the sun we should simply figure out how to live with this cycle. We are currently on the upswing, they say, warming out of the Little Ice Age, but in a few hundred years will be back on the downswing. Efforts to slow down the current warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are at best irrelevant, or at worst damaging for our future development and welfare.

This, of course, is not what the fourth assessment report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a few weeks ago. The report from its climate science working group concluded that it is likely that most of the warming of the last 50 years has been caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations and that, depending on our actions now to slow the growth of emissions, warming by 2100 will probably be between about 1.5C and 6C.

The upper end of this range is almost an order of magnitude larger than the warming that Singer and Avery suggest is caused by the 1,500-year cycle. So is this a fight between scientific truth and error? This seems to be how Singer and Avery would like to present it - "science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false".

Means of inquiry

At one level, it is as simple as this. Science as a means of inquiry into how the world works has been so successful because it has developed a series of principles, methods and techniques for being able to make such judgments. For example, we now understand the major transmission routes for HIV/Aids, that smoking injures health, and that wearing seat belts saves lives.

And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it.

Advertisement
So far so good. Deploying the machinery of scientific method allows us to filter out hypotheses - such as those presented by Singer and Avery - as being plain wrong. But there are two other characteristics of science that are also important when it comes to deploying its knowledge for the benefit of public policy and society: that scientific knowledge is always provisional knowledge, and that it can be modified through its interaction with society.

That science is an unfolding process of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many new ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today.

Yet it is important that on big questions such as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moments when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time.

But our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to change as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodological rule book that science has painstakingly written over many generations of experience.

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.
WELL apperently can't post the entire article you have the link. Point out where he sais it please?

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis inThe Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36] this is from wikepedia and talks about your e-mails
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and third 1 article about 2 groups of scientists bikkering about how to interpret data, one group being admittedly libertarian doesn't sound like strong proof either.

And now for the truth:

1. The "Climategate" emails showed a deliberate and organized effort at the highest levels of taxpayer-funded academia and research institutions to promote a supposed scientific basis for Michal Mann, working at UVA from 1999 to 2005, what is called "the cause" in the emails.

a. Email #0810 from Michael Mann: "0810 Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause

1577: Jones: [FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well
hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in
the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station
data.

???? Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way
to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all
emails at the end of the process

3755: “It is really important that you don’t just copy or reproduce any
bits because it is not my proposal and it would be a court case in
theory if a similarity was noticed.” “but for GODS SAKE please respect
the sensitivity here and destroy the file immediately when finished and
please do not tell ANYBODY I sent this. Cheers Keith” ."


2495 Humphrey/DEFRA: I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political
interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on
climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be
a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.
Climategate…Again?


Again??
"...They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish."


2. The "cause" was the imposition of an agenda of spending, prohibition, and regulation embraced and demanded by a broad coalition of "global governance" proponents, and government and academic and scientific institutions. Under the guise of remedying some "global warming crisis," it is nothing more than the latest scam to market a utopian agenda of control, wealth transfers, and artificial scarcity sold as liberty, equality and plenty.
Horner, "The Liberal War on Transparency," p. 14-15.

What's the old saying about raising mushrooms?

Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em manure.

Seems the Left uses the same system on the electorate.


One more?


3. "UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'"
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Guess we can do this all day. If you insist that your right,altough the only way to proof it is by denying, evading, i can't stop you.
Just so where clear. As to your famous article, you're unable to point me to a place in that article where he so much as implies that global warming is hoax even though i asked you repeatedly to do so.
Your famous e-mail scandal was so scandelous that they fired noone. And the general consensus was that it was a plot to cast doubt.
And your famous 19 years without increase in global temperature is actually a period of 2001 to 2009 where the actual rise was less then expected.
In the meantime I've shown you graphs and visual tells from NASA that confirms global warming and the fact that global warming is supported by 97 percent of the scientific community.
One of us is indoctrinated you can guess who.

No, we can't.

Let's just remind that I provided the actual emails.

And the admission....this: "...leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

OK...you're dismissed.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
list of all entities that looked into it and then dismissed your e-mails
1 quote from an unknown person, in one of the thousands of agencies directly and indirectly dealing with climate change without any confirmation, against fact after fact. I've been finding holes big enough to drive a truck trough all day in all your assertions and I didn't need to find some obscure article to prove my point. I can go to NASA, or wikipedia for my info. Hell I'm still waiting for you to point me to a place in the article. It was your first so called piece of evidence but the facts there don't even stand by you. You're right tough I don't see a point in continuing either. You are a PROVEN zealot and like all zealots facts mean nothing to you. Goodnight.

 

[JoeB131]

Political Spice still has her Trump University Degree proudly framed on her wall.