dennislmay

Global Cooling

Recommended Posts

Climategate 2.0: Scientists Pushed To Hide Data

Posted: 20 Sep 2013 01:52 PM PDT

climategate%202.0.jpg

Emails leaked to the AP show the U.S. and other governments pushed scientists preparing a new UN climate report due out next week to omit or downplay evidence that the earth's atmosphere has stopped warming for the past 15 years.

In other words, in the view of government, when the facts don't support its agenda and/or narrative, lie about the facts, change the facts, or hide them altogether.

But this certainly comes as no surprise to us Americans, right? After all, we've been getting a steady dose of this since 2008. We're accustomed to a certain president and his party's "three-step process" that begins with lies, then revises history to fit the desired story, and ends by attacking anyone who dares disagree and speak out. In the case of Climategate II ... we're kinda getting all 3 at once.

====================================================================================================

This seems to rise to the level of RICO.****

Look at some of the key cases where this has been used.

****http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

.

What you described is the Saul Alinsky Method.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't treat climate modeling as a valid subject of discussion like tweaking or minor improvements are going to make a difference - or even going back to the drawing board. They are not even trying to do valid modeling and have no intention of allowing experiments to invalidate what they are claiming to do. It is an embarrassment beyond belief.

Dennis

You are verify my prior claim that we really do not (yet) have a science of climate.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't treat climate modeling as a valid subject of discussion like tweaking or minor improvements are going to make a difference - or even going back to the drawing board. They are not even trying to do valid modeling and have no intention of allowing experiments to invalidate what they are claiming to do. It is an embarrassment beyond belief.

Dennis

You are verify my prior claim that we really do not (yet) have a science of climate.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Correct, there is no science of climate at the present time - nor any plans to seriously address it as a valid science.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then we get this:

A landmark report from the world's top climate scientists this week is likely to say with heightened certainty that humans are behind the planet's rising temperatures, and that surface temperatures are not the only indicators of climate change.

Senior scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was a review editor on the report, says other signs that bear witness to changes include shrinking Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland ice, warming oceans (especially the deep ocean) and sea-level rise.

This will help "defuse the issue of the supposed hiatus in global warming," which Trenberth says really isn't a hiatus at all. The leveling off of average surface temperatures since 1998 is what some are calling a "hiatus" or "pause" in global warming, but that's due in part to the fact that 1998 was such an unusually warm El Nino year. El Nino is a periodic natural warming of Pacific Ocean water that affects global weather patterns.

One quick question is whether warming oceans in the deep ocean is factually believeable.

Would warmer water stay submerged and not rise to the surface? Does heat function differently there?

http://http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/24/climate-change-report/2862815/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28USATODAY+-+News+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then we get this:

A landmark report from the world's top climate scientists this week is likely to say with heightened certainty that humans are behind the planet's rising temperatures, and that surface temperatures are not the only indicators of climate change.

Senior scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was a review editor on the report, says other signs that bear witness to changes include shrinking Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland ice, warming oceans (especially the deep ocean) and sea-level rise.

One quick question is whether warming oceans in the deep ocean is factually believeable.

Would warmer water stay submerged and not rise to the surface? Does heat function differently there?

When it appears surface temperatures are increasing that is evidence in support of global warming, when surface temperatures are not increasing that is not the important indicator.

When Arctic sea ice is increasing it is the trend of decline in previous years that matters - even though historically Arctic sea ice has varied all over the place.

Greenland was once a green land - nuff said.

warming oceans (especially the deep ocean) - since the heat capacity of water is 1,000x that of air that means you must sample it at 1,000x the volume density you sample air to get accurate heat information. They have only begun taking ocean temperature readings a few years ago in any useful quantity - but 8 orders of magnitude less than what would be required to do useful modeling even for short term predictions. And yes warm water rises. The circulation patterns do have an enormous influence on land air temperatures locally.

It has been known for several years that at least 1/3 of the rise in ocean levels is due to ground water irrigation run off to the oceans not being replenished as fast as it is being pumped out. There are other factors having to do with where/when they sample, natural variability and the mechanics of continental drift/lift/submergence which contribute to apparent change. The rise is trivial in any case and not anything like the modeling predicted.

Climate change modeling/predictions is not science - not even close.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then we get this:

Senior scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., [...] says [...].

Climate change modeling/predictions is not science - not even close.

Dennis

And Trenberth isn't a scientist - not even close.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Trenberth isn't a scientist - not even close.

Ellen

Interesting. The Wiki box on the right lists him as a "meteorolgist" and "atmospheric scientist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has the titles. Think James Taggart.

'Nuf said. Showing up in Google searches on the subject would be inconvenient.

Ellen

He has the title on paper without applying the methodology required by who actually engage in science. A PhD is often acknowledgement of time served - nothing more.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has the title on paper without applying the methodology required by who actually engage in science. A PhD is often acknowledgement of time served - nothing more.

It's worse in this case. There are people who are lousy at methodology but aren't cheating within their limited lights. And then there are people who know better and are talented at lying and at manipulating data.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has the title on paper without applying the methodology required by who actually engage in science. A PhD is often acknowledgement of time served - nothing more.

It's worse in this case. There are people who are lousy at methodology but aren't cheating within their limited lights. And then there are people who know better and are talented at lying and at manipulating data.

Ellen

Let the buyer and the journal reader beware.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has the title on paper without applying the methodology required by who actually engage in science. A PhD is often acknowledgement of time served - nothing more.

It's worse in this case. There are people who are lousy at methodology but aren't cheating within their limited lights. And then there are people who know better and are talented at lying and at manipulating data.

Ellen

It does not seem to matter to the politicians at the APS [now a joke organization] that there is no science going on and those working the field are incompetent or liars. Grease the APS leadership to keep their stamp of approval - the APS now is just an extension of a political party - no longer an organization related to science.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not seem to matter to the politicians at the APS [now a joke organization] that there is no science going on and those working the field are incompetent or liars. Grease the APS leadership to keep their stamp of approval - the APS now is just an extension of a political party - no longer an organization related to science.

Dennis

L and I talk about the days - which we remember - when to be found out engaging in scientific fraud was the kiss of death for a scientific career. Now it just seems to get you more fame and money and eager audiences attending your lectures.

There are folks who have been trying for years to arouse scientific conscience in the APS leadership. "Go away, bothersome cricket" (more suavely expressed) is the leadership's attitude.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not seem to matter to the politicians at the APS [now a joke organization] that there is no science going on and those working the field are incompetent or liars. Grease the APS leadership to keep their stamp of approval - the APS now is just an extension of a political party - no longer an organization related to science.

Dennis

L and I talk about the days - which we remember - when to be found out engaging in scientific fraud was the kiss of death for a scientific career. Now it just seems to get you more fame and money and eager audiences attending your lectures.

There are folks who have been trying for years to arouse scientific conscience in the APS leadership. "Go away, bothersome cricket" (more suavely expressed) is the leadership's attitude.

Ellen

I view the APS as I viewed CBS News when Dan Rather was the anchor. I knew what Dan Rather was so anything that came out of his mouth was suspect regardless of what he said. The APS has no credibility and should be entirely bypassed [the name is forever tainted so it should be dissolved]. Same for the Nobel Prize - because the name is also associated with Nobel Peace Prize it is forever tainted and should be bypassed [dissolved if possible]. Reform is not worth it when they've gone that far over the ever popular "Red Line".

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And PS: The famous APS position statement on global warming was cobbled together at lunch by five, I think it was, five or six people, one of them dissenting, and was not submitted to the membership for a vote. Try to get the position statement changed.......

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And PS: The famous APS position statement on global warming was cobbled together at lunch by five, I think it was, five or six people, one of them dissenting, and was not submitted to the membership for a vote. Try to get the position statement changed.......

Ellen

And if you can't trust them when it matters - it means you can't trust them at all.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely astounding how ignorant, inaccurate, imbecilic and flat out wrong the marxists and progressives can be.

I remember this book and the impact it had on the thought processes of planners.

Stephens: Does Environmentalism Cause Amnesia? Climate-change alarmists warn us about coming food shortages. They said the same in 1968.

Warming is becoming a major problem. "A change in our climate," writes one deservedly famous American naturalist, "is taking place very sensibly." Snowfall, he notes, has become "less frequent and less deep." Rivers that once "seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now."

And it's having an especially worrisome effect on the food supply: "This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits."

That isn't a leaked excerpt from the latest report of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but it may as well be. Last week, Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise of the website No Frakking Consensus posted a draft of a forthcoming IPCC report on the alleged effects climate change will have on food production. The New York Times NYT -1.60% then splashed the news on its front page Saturday. It's another tale of warming woe:

"With or without adaptation," the report warns, "climate change will reduce median yields by 0 to 2% per decade for the rest of the century, as compared to a baseline without climate change. These projected impacts will occur in the context of rising crop demand, projected to increase by 14% per decade until 2050."

BN-AG508_glovie_DV_20131104185528.jpg

Two silly books, now being recycled by global warming alarmists.

If this has a familiar ring, it's because it harks back to the neo-Malthusian forecasts of the 1960s and '70s, when we were supposed to believe that population growth would outstrip food production. This gave us such titles as "Famine 1975!", a 1967 best seller by the brothers William and Paul Paddock, along with Paul Ehrlich's vastly influential "The Population Bomb," a book that began with the words, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303482504579177651057373802

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely astounding how ignorant, inaccurate, imbecilic and flat out wrong the marxists and progressives can be.

That assumes they are honest brokers - not the case at all. Marxist and Progressives re-use disinformation campaigns that have worked in the past. They know that an insufficient number of people are involved in actual independent thinking or research - recycled emotional ploys will work as they worked in the past. Green is the new Red, once the media and educational systems were entirely compromised Marxists and Progressives can have their way on pretty much any issue using simple repetitive emotional pleas. Repeating lies allow them to reach their goals, after their goals are reached distractions using other issues cause the low information voter to forget how the fog of lies got them to where they are at. The Marxist and Progressive method is to keep the public continually off balance introducing one instability after another all pushing [herding] toward collectivist authoritarian goals. No problem is ever resolved, no scandal ever settled, no final word ever allowed because another distraction is presented before a thought or conclusion can ever be reached by the low information voter. The media and educational system keep the fog of confusion and disinformation ever alive.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely astounding how ignorant, inaccurate, imbecilic and flat out wrong the marxists and progressives can be.

That assumes they are honest brokers - not the case at all.

Agreed. I think the lead honchos know just what they're doing.

Speaking of Ehrlich, here's a link to a Forbes interview with him from 1/16/2013.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely astounding how ignorant, inaccurate, imbecilic and flat out wrong the marxists and progressives can be.

That assumes they are honest brokers - not the case at all.

Agreed. I think the lead honchos know just what they're doing.

Speaking of Ehrlich, here's a link to a Forbes interview with him from 1/16/2013.

Ellen

Marxist central planners always know best even when everything they predict is politically based and no more likely to be right than throwing dice. Never does it occur to them that freedom and opportunity brings the riches to people to avoid most of the problems they predict. Their view of people as one-dimensional livestock to be guided through the obstacles of life created by their crude nature is an indication of their own lack of mental development - not the reality of the world.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never does it occur to them that freedom and opportunity brings the riches to people to avoid most of the problems they predict.

I don't agree that it doesn't occur to them. I think they know it, but what they want is the problems, giving them still more power. For instance, I think that Ehrlich knows that energy curtailment is a great way to produce famines.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never does it occur to them that freedom and opportunity brings the riches to people to avoid most of the problems they predict.

I don't agree that it doesn't occur to them. I think they know it, but what they want is the problems, giving them still more power. For instance, I think that Ehrlich knows that energy curtailment is a great way to produce famines.

Ellen

I agree Elen. I put nothing past this vile Administration. Collapsing the economy reigns king with most of them imo.

-Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never does it occur to them that freedom and opportunity brings the riches to people to avoid most of the problems they predict.

I don't agree that it doesn't occur to them. I think they know it, but what they want is the problems, giving them still more power. For instance, I think that Ehrlich knows that energy curtailment is a great way to produce famines.

Ellen

I agree that the leadership knows what they are doing, I should have said it never occurs to those who blindly follow Progressives. The leadership of the Progressives dare not openly explain what they are up to - even to their followers. Socialism is for the people, not the socialists [Wilkow]. Somehow the followers of Progressives think they will have an input on decision making in this grand scheme. That is not the case at all. Like in all previous authoritarian socialist schemes the first round of followers - who are true believers - are the 2nd group to go against the wall when the leadership consolidates power casting off any pretense of social justice or other platitudes that gained them power.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...