• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

apdst said:
Got any evidence supporting your claim that Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq? We have plenty of evidence to support the claim that scientists have been lieing about global warming...:rofl
Click to expand...

so 84% or so of climate scientists are lying?
 
"The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

the US corporate media tried to ignore the downing street memo.
 
scottsoperson said:
STATS:

only 5% of climate scientists agree with the radical repubs on global warming.
Click to expand...

Interesting point about the polling question....

no mention of CO2 as the cause of warming. It would be interesting to see the question: Is human produced CO2 the cause of the current warming?
 
Gill said:
Interesting point about the polling question....

no mention of CO2 as the cause of warming. It would be interesting to see the question: Is human produced CO2 the cause of the current warming?
Click to expand...

This an important question that needs to be addressed. However, the current science seems hopelessly entwined with political considerations. Science works best when unemcombered with politics.
 
scottsoperson said:
STATS:

only 5% of climate scientists agree with the radical repubs on global warming.
Click to expand...


Wow, that is powerful stuff.

Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's beginning to unravel for Obama? He's going to Copenhagen....how can this issue not be front burner....if a groundswell begins against this global warming hoax, his numbers already falling like Romans in front of Hannibal...what is next?

He should have chosen Tiger woods as a VP, get some of the publicity off of him.
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
Wow, that is powerful stuff.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they're mostly looking at the same damn data. How many satellites and related equipment do you think exists? So if UEA fudges the data and if 50% of the 97% base their conclusions on it, what's their credibility? So let's not go inflating the numbers. All those scientists didn't conduct their own independent experiments. And peer reviewed papers aren't worth a **** when the data is fudged.
 
Middleground said:
Wow, that is powerful stuff.
Click to expand...

Extremely powerful since the people have drawn their erroneous conclusions based on conflicting data. I don't even consider them scientists.

H-O-A-X

Dude, you've been duped.
 
Researcher: NASA hiding climate data - Washington Times

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

........

Mr. Horner said he's seeking the data itself, but he also wants to see the chain of e-mails from scientists discussing the changes.

The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 days. Mr. Horner says he's never received an official acknowledgement of his three separate FOIA requests, but has received e-mails showing the agency is aware of them.

He said he has provided NASA with a notice of intent to sue under FOIA, but said he also hopes members of Congress get involved and demand the information be released.

NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the earth is warming due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues its data suggests this decade has been the warmest on record.

On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggests temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade.
Click to expand...

I am interested in seeing the data from NASA as well. Should be interesting to see the formulas they use to fill in data that was never recorded, How they adjusted the data after they changed the coatings on the temp sensor huts in 1979, how they account for urban heat soak in better than 80% of their temp sensor locations, etc.

Also, I am very interested in their explanation for how and why they saw no change in global temperatures from satellites until they "normalized the data to match ground sensor data".

And no, the Democrats cannot back down from global warming. They have bet everything on the control they will gain over the economy and the people with all the AGW laws and regulations they hope to pass.

It will be interesting to find out just who at NASA has exchanged what emails with the people under fire in this current scandal. Anyone care to bet that people high up in NASA are also implicated?
 
Last edited:
1 Easy Target said:
I am interested in seeing the data from NASA as well. Should be interesting to see the formulas they use to fill in data that was never recorded, How they adjusted the data after they changed the coatings on the temp sensor huts in 1979, how they account for urban heat soak in better than 80% of their temp sensor locations, etc.

Also, I am very interested in their explanation for how and why they saw no change in global temperatures from satellites until they "normalized the data to match ground sensor data".

And no, the Democrats cannot back down from global warming. They have bet everything on the control they will gain over the economy and the people with all the AGW laws and regulations they hope to pass.

It will be interesting to find out just who at NASA has exchanged what emails with the people under fire in this current scandal. Anyone care to bet that people high up in NASA are also implicated?
Click to expand...

I do, but at this point I'm just wondering what we will be permitted to know considering the total silence surrounding this event from the mainstream media. Quite frankly I know far too much about tiger's personal life already while I am forced to search for information on this very subject. Pity.
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
I do, but at this point I'm just wondering what we will be permitted to know considering the total silence surrounding this event from the mainstream media. Quite frankly I know far too much about tiger's personal life all the while I am forced to search for information on this very subject. Pity.
Click to expand...

It is eery the way they've completely ignored this. Even moreso than usual. Typically, the media goes into some sort of spin control when a story hits that doesn't meet their agenda, but not this time. Abject silence.

You stated earlier that there's too much invested in global warming for them to backtrack. That's absolutely it. This is a pet issue for so many liberals, that to lose it would be akin to losing a family member. They won't let go easily.

The problem is the vast majority of Americans simply don't buy it anymore, and I think THAT is the reason for the silence. To defend it now would seriously hang the media out for more scrutiny, and the quickly plummeting ratings at every media outlet except Fox has them a bit leary of their own shadow at this point.

This is real news. To ignore it is stupid, not just irresponsible. It's not like people don't know by now; it's all over the internet.
 
Gill said:
No, I haven't read ALL of the emails... there are thousands of them.

Feel free to read them all yourself though...

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable
Click to expand...


Really wouldn't expect you to read them. To be honest I am neither for or against pro or anti global warming people and/or scientists. This is too important of an issue to be politicized. Unfortunately I am also not a climate research person. Therefore, we have to rely upon people to interpret the info. Makes it tough to know who is in the right.

However, falsification of data would be considered a criminal act of fraud. Most Universities rely upon funding for their research and there are very tight rules for research AND publication of scholarly material. Therefore, you would expect criminal charges of fraud if there were any truth to all of this. Arrests would follow and it would not just be anti-global warming people or Rush Limbaugh bringing it up. Not to mention that anti-global warming people are also free to submit their research findings to a scholarly journal. If they want to dispute global warming research, they just need to follow the same rules required of any research scientist.

Otherwise, just yelling "they lied!" really doesn't pass the test of having evidence.
 
Ziggae_6 said:
Not to mention that anti-global warming people are also free to submit their research findings to a scholarly journal. If they want to dispute global warming research, they just need to follow the same rules required of any research scientist.

Otherwise, just yelling "they lied!" really doesn't pass the test of having evidence.
Click to expand...

They have.

There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers refuting various aspects of AGW.
 
I have read many of the emails, but the commented computer code is even more revealing. It describes the clear intent to distort the data. The emails show how dissenters were attacked and discredited and how the FOIA requests were ignored/circumvented.

Many knowledgeable bloggers on this subject insist that no hack was involved. They say either an inside whistleblower released the material or it was inadvertently placed in a public area of the server. The file that was taken was a single compressed file that was a compilation of much of the relevant material requested under the UK's Freedom of Information Act. It may have been prepared for that purpose.

This has huge implications, especially if the demand for investigations spreads, which may be happening already.
 
Gill said:
They have.

There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers refuting various aspects of AGW.
Click to expand...


Published? If so, that is the nature of scholarly research and theory. They are trying to predict a future pattern. The key is in how accurate the instruments they are using and whether there are alternative theories. You could still look at the same data and come up with different conclusions. Unless you know more about specific content of these "papers", you're dealing in ignorance with the subject.

If not published in a proper journal, don't waste your time.
 
Ziggae_6 said:
Published? If so, that is the nature of scholarly research and theory. They are trying to predict a future pattern. The key is in how accurate the instruments they are using and whether there are alternative theories. You could still look at the same data and come up with different conclusions. Unless you know more about specific content of these "papers", you're dealing in ignorance with the subject.

If not published in a proper journal, don't waste your time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, proper journals......are being made a joke of by these UEA clowns.
 
Ziggae_6 said:
Published? If so, that is the nature of scholarly research and theory. They are trying to predict a future pattern. The key is in how accurate the instruments they are using and whether there are alternative theories. You could still look at the same data and come up with different conclusions. Unless you know more about specific content of these "papers", you're dealing in ignorance with the subject.

If not published in a proper journal, don't waste your time.
Click to expand...

Peer reviewed journals typically are "proper journals".
 
Erod said:
Whoa, now we're grasping. Good Lord.

Conservatives are absolutely for taking care of the planet. In fact, we are typically among the most conscious about picking up after ourselves.

We just don't build a political party around it, and lie and exagerrate environmental "crisis" to gain votes for other hidden agendas.
Click to expand...

Example.... look at DC. after Obama's inauguration, and then after the millions that showed up at the 9/12 DC. protest.

Inauguration Cleanup Effort Underway
On the day after America’s biggest yard party, it was all about the monumental cleanup.

The city’s trash trucks have already hauled away 90 tons of inaugural garbage with at least 40 more tons left to go, said Mafara Hobson, spokeswoman for D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D).
Click to expand...

Inauguration Cleanup Effort Underway - Inauguration Watch - News and notes on the inauguration of the 44th president of the United States

trash012009.jpg


Of course there is no story on the 9/12 protest, as far as the MSM is concerned, it never happened.

Here is a pic of all the trash left behind by those environment hating conservatives.

9-12-posr-rally2.jpg
 
Gill said:
Peer reviewed journals typically are "proper journals".
Click to expand...

Yep, but you used the word "papers." You can have a paper be peer reviewed but still not get published. If you meant journal, no problem, just a gap of communication between you and I there.
 
Last edited:
Remember that some of the e-mails talk about controlling the peer review process of the 'proper' journals to keep out dissenting views. So no publication of contrasting views = total agreement of the experts.

A University of Minnesota professor managed to publish his findings that heavy storm cycles for the last 100,000 years have had a very steady and flat cycle - not trending upwards as the global warming crowd predicts in ALL of their models. Two of the professors who are currently under investigation in 'climategate' were instrumental in the professor losing his tenure, his position at the University, AND all professional credentials. Some of the released e-mails seem to refer to this conspiracy to silence a legitimate scientific research that managed to get published that casts some doubts on a small portion and claim by the Global Warming crowd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom