The death of Impartiality

[westwall]

If you believe this sham exonerates Jones then you really do believe that OJ is innocent.

[Collide-a-scape Blog Archive Collide-a-scape >> An Inconvenient Provocateur




QUOTE=Old Rocks;2249644]

So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
--------------------------------------------
While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.

Actually it adds something critical to the debate: Ethical Transparency.

Those who believe in AGW scream bloody murder about studies funded by oil companies and won't trust a thing they say. On the other hand, government funded surveys and science are considered faultless, even after fraud has been discovered. But when you look at the finances and where they come from, often you see a direct correllation between the results and the bankers for the studies.

In a way, we need a 'Real Clear Politics' for science, who just compares all the data and where it's from. For instance, in RCP, take the race for senate in WI. In total, feingold is polled to be losing to Tommy Thompson (assuming he runs) by 3. But when you look at the 5 polls you see that 2 polls included come from left wing activist groups, and those are showing feingold winning, while other polls range from Thompson winning from +2 to +12. Although it's blatant to see that there is an obvious bias on 3 of the polls, taking them all together gives you a better view of the whole subject. AGW needs the same.



Thank you for illustrating exactly what I'm talking about. You're deliberately trying to obfuscate the past that does not fit your pro AGW mantra. Not only that, you stand on the false assertion that the 'science is settled' when no such thing is possible with a theory. There is only the current theory, which has been roundly shown, thanks to the IPCC data leaks, the East Anglia Emails and other leaks thanks to crackerjack investigative reporting in England, as based on deliberately fraudulent data for political gain by a minority of scientists and activists looking to shape the world into a socialist/fascist state.

Sure there have been temperature highs and lows in the past, that's why they need the "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide" declines data from other sources and winnow out the contribution due to man.

And once again, this is why 'Scientists' like Mann/Jones/Hansen need to be thrown out of the scientific community. It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.

But thank you for illustrating for all the world, you are not interested in the truth, but political advocacy and power.

On the say so of a bunch of ignoramouses like you?

Mann has been exonerated by peers. The Science and Technology Committee of Britian's Parliament has exonerated Jones.

And Hansen has never been accused of anything other than being one of the best scientists in his field, probably the best. Which, of course, means that braindead asses like you cannot stand him, or all of the other scientists who are so much more capable than you are.[/QUOTE]

 

[gslack]

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

National Academy of Sciences site where you can read and download the research on the temperatures for the last 2000 years.

We don't want politicized reports......

 

[gslack]

My primary issue with climate models is that you really only have 100-150 years of reliable direct measurements. All other are anecdotal, tree rings, ice cores, old records using crappy measurements. Trying to model a billion year old climate model on 100-150 of hard data (or even the thousands of years of anecdotal data we have) would be like trying to figure out how humans lived using a 2 second sample of a person's lifespan. If the person was sneezing during that 2 seconds you would assume peoples lives are one big series of sneezes.

Perhaps you're making the issue much too complicated. What happened billions and millions of years ago is largely irrelevant. Humans evolved during a relatively cool era on earth with much lower CO2 than at times in the past. We know the approximate levels of CO2 during the period and that what we have now is about 25-30% above recent historical averages. Given that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and more CO2 would trap more energy, where's it going but to heat up the earth? Talking about the distant past doesn't help much in this scenario. As a matter of fact it tends to obscure the real issues, the number one goal of the deniers, since they've already lost the scientific argument on logic alone. Sure there have been temperature highs and lows in the past, that's why they need the "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide" declines data from other sources and winnow out the contribution due to man.

I am responding the bolded part because its hypocrisy makes whatever else you said irrelevant.....

If the past is so irrelevant why does the pro AGW crowd and so many scientists rely on it to draw conclusion of our current climate?

yeah, talk about hypocrisy... Give me a break.... How old are you man? Seriously, you post nonsensically but do so with enough half ass knowledge from green blogs and the media, to almost sound like you know something about it.... Almost......

play time is over junior, start quoting people correctly and acting like a big boy or remain an ignored juvenile.....

 

[gslack]

So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
--------------------------------------------
While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.

Actually it adds something critical to the debate: Ethical Transparency.

Those who believe in AGW scream bloody murder about studies funded by oil companies and won't trust a thing they say. On the other hand, government funded surveys and science are considered faultless, even after fraud has been discovered. But when you look at the finances and where they come from, often you see a direct correllation between the results and the bankers for the studies.

In a way, we need a 'Real Clear Politics' for science, who just compares all the data and where it's from. For instance, in RCP, take the race for senate in WI. In total, feingold is polled to be losing to Tommy Thompson (assuming he runs) by 3. But when you look at the 5 polls you see that 2 polls included come from left wing activist groups, and those are showing feingold winning, while other polls range from Thompson winning from +2 to +12. Although it's blatant to see that there is an obvious bias on 3 of the polls, taking them all together gives you a better view of the whole subject. AGW needs the same.



Thank you for illustrating exactly what I'm talking about. You're deliberately trying to obfuscate the past that does not fit your pro AGW mantra. Not only that, you stand on the false assertion that the 'science is settled' when no such thing is possible with a theory. There is only the current theory, which has been roundly shown, thanks to the IPCC data leaks, the East Anglia Emails and other leaks thanks to crackerjack investigative reporting in England, as based on deliberately fraudulent data for political gain by a minority of scientists and activists looking to shape the world into a socialist/fascist state.

Sure there have been temperature highs and lows in the past, that's why they need the "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide" declines data from other sources and winnow out the contribution due to man.

And once again, this is why 'Scientists' like Mann/Jones/Hansen need to be thrown out of the scientific community. It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.

But thank you for illustrating for all the world, you are not interested in the truth, but political advocacy and power.

On the say so of a bunch of ignoramouses like you?

Mann has been exonerated by peers. The Science and Technology Committee of Britian's Parliament has exonerated Jones.

And Hansen has never been accused of anything other than being one of the best scientists in his field, probably the best. Which, of course, means that braindead asses like you cannot stand him, or all of the other scientists who are so much more capable than you are.

STOP LYING!!!!!!

THats a bald -faced and blatant lie..... Even the leaked emails admit mann's paper and numbers were incorrect.....

 

[gslack]

According to the NAS study, the Medieval warm period was not as warm as it is at present.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Then again, you do know what the NAS is, right?

LOL hey douchebag show me where in that book you linked to they say that...... Come on buddy you can't just post a link to whatever you think will back your story somehow, you need to give a real reference not a general direction..... Also it may interest the honest people here to note, the book you pointed to used the Mann paper and hockeystick graph as a base reference..... yeah nice bit of BS there pal...

Jesus you crack me up... you take a known and proven fudged paper and find a book from a scientific body who used that fudged paper to base their findings on, and then call it factual and true....... WOW!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.


There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.

However, the MPs criticised Professor Jones and climate scientists in general for being too possessive and secretive about the raw scientific data and computer codes they use to establish the link between global warming and human activities. They also criticised the UEA for fostering a culture of non-disclosure of scientific information to climate sceptics.




Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

The global warming deniers out there won't like this, but a big part of the Climategate conspiracy just melted away.

A Penn State academic board of inquiry has cleared Michael Mann of scientific misconduct.

Mann is a prominent scientist involved in the dispute over the release of more than 1,000 e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia in England. He's also a contributor to the beleaguered U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The major findings:

-- When Mann said in an e-mail he had used a "trick" in a graph that showed global warming in the 20th century, he wasn't manipulating data, as critics have loudly claimed.

The Penn State board found that, "The so-called ‘trick’ was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

-- Mann didn't destroy e-mail messages; the ones in question were produced to the Penn State board.

Naturally, this exoneration won't stop the forces that want Mann's head on a platter. But it appears the harshest charges against Mann have just been disproved.



Read more: Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated | Midwest Voices

 

[Old Rocks]

According to the NAS study, the Medieval warm period was not as warm as it is at present.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Then again, you do know what the NAS is, right?

LOL hey douchebag show me where in that book you linked to they say that...... Come on buddy you can't just post a link to whatever you think will back your story somehow, you need to give a real reference not a general direction..... Also it may interest the honest people here to note, the book you pointed to used the Mann paper and hockeystick graph as a base reference..... yeah nice bit of BS there pal...

Jesus you crack me up... you take a known and proven fudged paper and find a book from a scientific body who used that fudged paper to base their findings on, and then call it factual and true....... WOW!!!

Once again you seem to be incapable of even the simplest research.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Look at the graph on that page. None of the proxies for the Medieval Warm Period go much above zero. We are well above that right now on all methods of data collection.

Next time, do try to read a bit before flapping your ignorant yap.

 

[konradv]

It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.
-----------------------------------------

You're missing the point. "Tricks" meant "tricks of the statistical trade" and "hide" meant subtracting out background to determine the contribution of man. It's the deniers that have made this political, because they HAVE lost the scientific argument. EVERY scientist knows CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. Prersent levels are known to be above historical averages. So, where does it go, if not to heat the earth? Check out a science text on Conservation of Energy, some time.

 

[gslack]

Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.


There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.

However, the MPs criticised Professor Jones and climate scientists in general for being too possessive and secretive about the raw scientific data and computer codes they use to establish the link between global warming and human activities. They also criticised the UEA for fostering a culture of non-disclosure of scientific information to climate sceptics.




Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

The global warming deniers out there won't like this, but a big part of the Climategate conspiracy just melted away.

A Penn State academic board of inquiry has cleared Michael Mann of scientific misconduct.

Mann is a prominent scientist involved in the dispute over the release of more than 1,000 e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia in England. He's also a contributor to the beleaguered U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The major findings:

-- When Mann said in an e-mail he had used a "trick" in a graph that showed global warming in the 20th century, he wasn't manipulating data, as critics have loudly claimed.

The Penn State board found that, "The so-called ‘trick’ was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

-- Mann didn't destroy e-mail messages; the ones in question were produced to the Penn State board.

Naturally, this exoneration won't stop the forces that want Mann's head on a platter. But it appears the harshest charges against Mann have just been disproved.



Read more: Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated | Midwest Voices

jesus dude why don't you address the point I made?

First all of this was already shown to be a PR gesture.... They aren't courts of law, and cannot exonerate anybody.

Second, UEA/CRU = one and the same... UEA is daddy and CRU is momma and their baby is AGW data.... Got that? yeah they are the heads of the so-called climate science community. So when they blame the so-called community, they blame the CRU and in turn the UEA. They are the premiere climate research unit the IPCC goes to. THey are the representatives of the community..... Now drop the PR nonsense weasel...

The emails made a point of Mann's mistakes and McIntyre's corrections to them. I have copies of those emails, I know what a lot of them say and I read a couple regarding this very thing....

You made the claim the hockey stick graph had been shown correct after all... That was a lie, the reality is even the UEA and CRU were embarrassed of it. As well they should be... My post was a response to that lie, now respond to my post and stop trying to confound the point like a weasel.....

 

[gslack]

According to the NAS study, the Medieval warm period was not as warm as it is at present.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Then again, you do know what the NAS is, right?

LOL hey douchebag show me where in that book you linked to they say that...... Come on buddy you can't just post a link to whatever you think will back your story somehow, you need to give a real reference not a general direction..... Also it may interest the honest people here to note, the book you pointed to used the Mann paper and hockeystick graph as a base reference..... yeah nice bit of BS there pal...

Jesus you crack me up... you take a known and proven fudged paper and find a book from a scientific body who used that fudged paper to base their findings on, and then call it factual and true....... WOW!!!

Once again you seem to be incapable of even the simplest research.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Look at the graph on that page. None of the proxies for the Medieval Warm Period go much above zero. We are well above that right now on all methods of data collection.

Next time, do try to read a bit before flapping your ignorant yap.

OH really????

Okay then next time why don't you do a little reading before you run off at the mouth.....

I told you point blank in my post, its from the Mann infamous hockey stick graph. THe entire book uses that false graph as a basis for its findings..... So they use a proven false graph to make a case and we are supposed to assume it accurate or true??

That may be your version of science douchebag but not mine..... Now you linked to an ebook, not a page or a graph in your previous post but an ebook first chapter.

We already know you didn't actually read it, you never do until you have to correct a mistake you made..... Like now.....

Once more they use the hockey stick as a basis, making their conclusions no more valuable than the source, a known and proven falsehood.....

useless...... Do research? To make your claim for you? HA! Dude I obviously read and understand more of your crap you post than you do.....

 

[konradv]

For prime examples of "The Death of Impartiality", read ANY of gslack's posts.

 

[gslack]

For prime examples of "The Death of Impartiality", read ANY of gslack's posts.

Oh cry me a river junior.....

Ever notice every time I call you out for being ignorant you don't say anything to about that, you just cry and insult like a sulking child..... yeah it is that pathetic....

 

[konradv]

You're the child, gslack. ALWAYS the first to resort juvenile arguments and name calling.

 

[gslack]

I'm the child, gslack. ALWAYS the first to resort juvenile arguments and name calling.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See what happens when people decide they don't have to do the responsible and adult thing? Glad to see you coming around now junior......

 

[Big Fitz]

Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.


There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.

However, the MPs criticised Professor Jones and climate scientists in general for being too possessive and secretive about the raw scientific data and computer codes they use to establish the link between global warming and human activities. They also criticised the UEA for fostering a culture of non-disclosure of scientific information to climate sceptics.




Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

The global warming deniers out there won't like this, but a big part of the Climategate conspiracy just melted away.

A Penn State academic board of inquiry has cleared Michael Mann of scientific misconduct.

Mann is a prominent scientist involved in the dispute over the release of more than 1,000 e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia in England. He's also a contributor to the beleaguered U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The major findings:

-- When Mann said in an e-mail he had used a "trick" in a graph that showed global warming in the 20th century, he wasn't manipulating data, as critics have loudly claimed.

The Penn State board found that, "The so-called ‘trick’ was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

-- Mann didn't destroy e-mail messages; the ones in question were produced to the Penn State board.

Naturally, this exoneration won't stop the forces that want Mann's head on a platter. But it appears the harshest charges against Mann have just been disproved.



Read more: Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated | Midwest Voices

Christ! Your 'proof' that Mann is not culpable in this fraud is equivalent to a Jersey Jury letting off a mob boss.

Eeeyyyy... Dis guy's innocent, now let's trow owt dese charges an' him an us can all get back to the Bada Bing an have a good time. You agree wit dat, dontcha, 'yeronna' or did ya forget dat campaign contribution me anna bois left for ya?

More peer review truthiness from the same group of criminals.

 

[gslack]

Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the scandal over the leak of sensitive emails from a university computer, has been largely exonerated by a powerful cross-party committee of MPs who said his scientific reputation remains intact.


There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.

However, the MPs criticised Professor Jones and climate scientists in general for being too possessive and secretive about the raw scientific data and computer codes they use to establish the link between global warming and human activities. They also criticised the UEA for fostering a culture of non-disclosure of scientific information to climate sceptics.




Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

The global warming deniers out there won't like this, but a big part of the Climategate conspiracy just melted away.

A Penn State academic board of inquiry has cleared Michael Mann of scientific misconduct.

Mann is a prominent scientist involved in the dispute over the release of more than 1,000 e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia in England. He's also a contributor to the beleaguered U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The major findings:

-- When Mann said in an e-mail he had used a "trick" in a graph that showed global warming in the 20th century, he wasn't manipulating data, as critics have loudly claimed.

The Penn State board found that, "The so-called ‘trick’ was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

-- Mann didn't destroy e-mail messages; the ones in question were produced to the Penn State board.

Naturally, this exoneration won't stop the forces that want Mann's head on a platter. But it appears the harshest charges against Mann have just been disproved.



Read more: Climategate melts away: Global warming expert exonerated | Midwest Voices

Christ! Your 'proof' that Mann is not culpable in this fraud is equivalent to a Jersey Jury letting off a mob boss.

Eeeyyyy... Dis guy's innocent, now let's trow owt dese charges an' him an us can all get back to the Bada Bing an have a good time. You agree wit dat, dontcha, 'yeronna' or did ya forget dat campaign contribution me anna bois left for ya?

More peer review truthiness from the same group of criminals.

Yeah? Well his truthiness is way more truthier than our truthseses...es........

 

[Big Fitz]

So here's a little challenge since it's such a hotbutton issue right now.

Who can find RAW DATA on CO2 production of mankind versus global volcano production, by year in a graph?

I've been searching off and on for two days and my Bing Fu has been coming up lacking. So who else can find some? I'm looking for the following qualifiers:

1. no blogs or secondary sources.
2. must come from a known science department or lab
3. have a graph

This is the kind of unfiltered raw data I want to see. I don't know if it's possible online anymore.

 

[gslack]

So here's a little challenge since it's such a hotbutton issue right now.

Who can find RAW DATA on CO2 production of mankind versus global volcano production, by year in a graph?

I've been searching off and on for two days and my Bing Fu has been coming up lacking. So who else can find some? I'm looking for the following qualifiers:

1. no blogs or secondary sources.
2. must come from a known science department or lab
3. have a graph

This is the kind of unfiltered raw data I want to see. I don't know if it's possible online anymore.

Well here is the problem.... When they tell us its all about CO2, and we show them thats incorrect, they turn around and say its also these other gases we make in copious amounts. Then when we point out something like this volcano which spews tons upon tons of GHG's into the atmosphere, they try and make it about CO2.....

We do produce more CO2 as far as we know currently, but what about the rest of the GH gases ? For some odd reason they are all deathly silent on that question....... I asked in here and none of them responded to it..... And thats the rub..... When it works its about CO2 and all the rest are so much nothing, and when it suits their needs its no longer just about CO2 bu all the other Green house gases as well. And of course when it suits their needs again, they go back to the CO2 focus ignoring the others in cases like this.....

It really doesn't matter if they produce more of one trace gas, what matters is how much Green house gases they produce. Water vapor is the largest by amount in the atmosphere, and as it turns out volcanoes create a lot of that. As well as several other GHG's to varying amounts, and those GHG's are also often times a more effective GHG by volume than CO2...

Also lets not forget the CO2 production we attribute to volcanoes currently is only on those volcanoes we actively study. We do not know about under the oceans at greater depths. And the fact the entire theory on this is from the same math so-called experts we got melting ice caps and the hockey stick graph from.

 

[Big Fitz]

Huh. Interesting. Then it might be nice to see all those different gas comparisons.

I do understand that we don't have every vent covered, and therefore can't get a perfect estimate. But it would be interesting to see the results.

For me, the 3 greenhouse gases I hear talked about are CO2, H2O and Methane. I don't know really much of any others. I know SO2 cools the atmosphere as well as ash, and their power seems to be in excess of the greenhouse gases, but they don't last as long because they precipitate out faster

Ultimately, I feel like we've wandered back into "peak oil" myth territory because we have not explored everywhere or monitored all sources and all 'truth' derived from the evidence is not really truth but the current operating theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

So here's a little challenge since it's such a hotbutton issue right now.

Who can find RAW DATA on CO2 production of mankind versus global volcano production, by year in a graph?

I've been searching off and on for two days and my Bing Fu has been coming up lacking. So who else can find some? I'm looking for the following qualifiers:

1. no blogs or secondary sources.
2. must come from a known science department or lab
3. have a graph

This is the kind of unfiltered raw data I want to see. I don't know if it's possible online anymore.

Volcano. USGS.