The Inquisition of Global Warming

Mad Max (PLN): "Early Christian leaders held to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and the heavens were eternal and static. Now, libs are trying to tell us that the Earth's climate is "no longer static" because evil man is doing his best to satisify his own desires at the expense of the planet. Quite a parallel, analogy isn't it. Is liberalism the new religious tyrrany? Who says time only marches forward in direction."


Early Christians had no cause or need to believe any such thing. If you are referring to Roman Catholics, who came later, that is a different matter entirely and should not be confused with "early Christians".

Christ was not a Roman Catholic, neither were any of the...

CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
1. CO2 only absorbs radiation as specific wavelengths. Once most of the radiation at those wavelengths have been absorbed (at about 20 ppm CO2)each additional CO2 molecule absorbs less. In our atmosphere CO2 is at roughly 360ppm (parts per million), each additional molecule of CO2 contributes less and less to global warming.

2. Glacial core analysis indicates that CO2 is a trailing indicator of global warming and not a leading indicator. Meaning that global warming causes increases in atmospheric CO2 not the other way around (this makes sense if you consider that gasses have a lower solubility in water at higher temperatures, so the ocean would hold less CO2 at higher...

Malkin's thread so you slithered over here where you can just post with no responses.

Better be careful... you're about to have a nervous breakdown.

It is truly ironic that libs who hate Christianity and chastize anyone who follows it will act like early religious zealots to defend their MMGW religion. Early Christian leaders held to the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and the heavens were eternal and static. Now, libs are trying to tell us that the Earth's climate is "no longer static" because evil man is doing his best to satisify his own desires at the expense of the planet. Quite a parallel, analogy isn't it. Is liberalism the new religious tyrrany? Who says time only marches forward in direction.

This blathering is very likely why JP Sobel was ignored:

"Replication of results is key to the scientific method. Data and data analysis should be released with all published papers. It should be released when requested for academic study. And it should definitely be released when demanded under the FOIA.""


I ans. - REALLY!? Well golly yuh think?! The fact is the data from the studies can be used again for replicating results. This data is still available and here is that link again:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

These are the actual sources. The real thing. Raw when stated and processed when stated. The codes are there and it's open to anyone. That means ANYONE! You'll need to unzip...

(piggybacking on Marinero),

"It is knowing how the data has been manipulated and the justification of that manipulation. This is particularly true in a field that requires as much statistical analysis as paleoclimatology."

Did you actually read this from JP Sobel? I mean did you read it while thinking?

What do you think manipulating data means?

Let's have the eminent TOMMY sound off on this one?

Come on Tommy, explain what data manipulation is?

Dear, dear Marinero,

That's science. Manipulating data. That's what they do, that's what's expected. They manipulate data with their code, and ask other peers to review the outcome. If others can repeat it, then they've come along and found...

And the answer to that is to consider why that post did not get a response.

Can you do that Marinero?

Try this on with me;

So this JP Sobel comes in and wonders out loud the most inane tripe, much like what goes on here at TH. First to decide that it is not possible to discern which data was used for which paper. Sourcing is a primary tool for all research. How is it you don't know that?

I worked in a Biochemistry library my sophomore year. It taught me what sourcing was all about. I was hired by the Vet. Medicine Library as well. Both found my services valuable and I stayed as long as I desired. I learned how direct the grad students to citations and how do decipher the various journal abreviations. This was...

http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

is labelled controversial from the source.

It is still up for consideration, yet you did not mention that?

If you want to argue that their is evidence yet to sort out, then do so.

That is fine and dandy.

I see you do note the Mr. Jones has stepped aside. You think him guilty - PERIOD!

I think, show me.

You think, YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN!

I think, NO WE HAVEN'T, as the debate has shown the context of all this is discounted by your side and given due process by mine. I don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

That's your total agenda, to stop anything you don't like. It's the same for my side, but we've been using methodolgy, you've...

with an ego a mile wide.

Narcissistic tendency, with a myopic stance upon others ability to discern.

You are a strange person.

You've given the same treatment to Proud Liberal.

Do you know either of us personally, from which you can draw you vapid conclusion?

Who the Cvuck am I?

Getting childish Tommy?

Like Anne?

Well, let's get to brass tacks then.

To nail this puppy up, why don't you refute the discussion here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/where s-the-data/

It clearly refutes that data is compromised. It has all the data available at this time. This site has been run by Gavin of Real Climate and maybe you want to go over his code?

Would you like to do that Tommy?

Here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelEsrc/



Here is...

is
http://www.sourcewatch.org/

Interesting to look at the source behind the source! It's about as "unbiased" as it gets with global warmists, which is not at all.

STATUS

to the EU, without approval of the citizens!

chilling

and WE ARE NEXT!

Obama is going to sign over control of the USA to the UN!
Which means to you, the UN (3rd world countries, communist countries, muslim countries)

will control our lives, can tax us any amount, dictate what we can do or not do, control our kids, control our education, control our wealth, control our military, control how much heat we can use, control our medical technology, control all of our technology and on and on and on!

so we have spent billions supporting corrupt criminal lying scientists, to

1. Make Al gore a billionaire
2. make all of the democrats mega millionaires
3. destroy jobs in the USA for the middle class
4. destroy the economy of the USA
5. support the frauds at every University
6. control our heat, energy use, and force the middle class deep into poverty and hopelessness
7. drive all of our jobs out of the country
8. drive all of our capital, jobs and technology out of the country.

It will take every dime of business profits 100 years to replay all of Obama's obscene waste plus interest

"Back off, man. I'm a scientist." Mann and Jones may as well have been saying the same thing.

Rick parrots the daily talking points. He probably screamed when Big Tobacco skewed evidence and hid data, but when Big Climate does it, oh, well....

Yeah, I know about little Ricky. So thoroughly bamboozled that like mad dogs, there's nothing left to do but euthanize him. I get that.

On the other hand, between this thread today and Barone's, we have driven Proud Liberal from the field with his tail between his låbia. That's been fun.

And then there was Hal Drunkahoo who decided to stand there with his little hands on his hips and demand to know my credentials. I gave them to him and that was the last I saw of him.

Liberals are used to easy pickings maniuplating the mindless because it is their shock troops who have successfully dumbed down nearly two generations of Americans to the point that they would buy "global warming." If you've NEVER heard of...

"The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

"This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

"So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? 'Not...

November 10, 2009

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41400 &src=eoa-manews

"New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

"This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

"The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial...

Stepping Down From CRU

December 1, 2009

"Climate change fraud, climate change leaked emails, climate change scandal, climategate, CRU, Harry Read Me, Phil Jones Climategate, Phil Jones resigns from CRU, Phil Jones steps down CRU, Watts Up With That

"Well. It’s about time. Embattled director of the Climate Research Unit–better known for his revealing emails…Phil Jones is stepping down today from his job. In a statement posted to its Web site, the University of East Anglia says Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

"Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.,...

Marinero & Libs Love Living in La La Land, both posts were very well said, but I don't expect it will make even the slightest impression on someone like Rick from Al Franken-land. The rivers of leftist purple Kool-Aid seem to run deep in that part of the country, and one of the primary components of liberal clima-theology is another river (in Egypt).



Pistol wrote: "So-called scientists seem less likely than most to say Oops, i skawooed up."


Except these criminals didn't "screw up", they actively perpetrated a global FRAUD, engaging in a REAL conspiracy (not the 'black helicopters' of Leftist fantasyland), with premeditation and malice aforethought.

A cabal of Leftist whack-jobs, and their...

certifiably insane.

He knows NOTHING about what he goes ballistic about.

I'm warning you, this is just going to be a re-hash of his endless diatribe on Barone's thread, that lasted TWO DAYS!

It is clear you have no background in professional scientific studies, so since you cannot talk with me on my level, let's drop down to yours, and ask a simple question:

Since science is a process, and this process has been compromised by the strange actions of the CRU, and since therefore to us professionals, the correct response is to discard all extrapolated results and begin again: Why do you, a partisan layman, feel it is so necessary to push forward with political action based on what we scientists recognize as faulty science? Who the fvck are you and what are you trying to pull?

In other words, Ricky darling, since you know nothing about this business, why are you constantly here trying to cast aspersions on us...

You are right. The scientists did not manipulate data even though they admitted doing so in their emails. The scientists did not cheer when a globull warming skeptic died. The scientists did not malign the work and character of skeptics. The scientists did not try to silence the 31,000 scientists, including 26,000 PhDs, who are skeptical. The scientists did not discuss changing the peer review process to prevent skeptics from publishing. The scientists did not review each others work to prevent outside review. The scientists did not throw away raw data, which they have admitted to doing. The head of the UEA-CRU did not step down this afternoon. Michael Mann did not use fraudulent evidence to create his hockey stick nor is...

The "Where's the Data?" article you linked to is an obvious attempt to mislead the public, and was effectively refuted by the very first commenter on the page. I quote:

"The problem is more than just access to raw data. It is knowing which data has been used in which papers. It is knowing how the data has been manipulated and the justification of that manipulation. This is particularly true in a field that requires as much statistical analysis as paleoclimatology.

Replication of results is key to the scientific method. Data and data analysis should be released with all published papers. It should be released when requested for academic study. And it should definitely be released when demanded under the FOIA."

If...

is referenced in this article:


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php/William_Gray

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray- on-agw/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Christy

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Easterbrook

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Piers_Corbyn

http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

These links are interesting. They do show skeptics...