It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Does anyone have copy of said bill which obama is going to sign? would be interested in deciding for myself what may or may not be signed away




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
S & F!
As many have stated, the criminals will not give up. We need to keep the pressure on Gore and his cohorts by bringing as many facts as possible to light. Slimy mold and mildew are best eliminated by bringing them into daylight.

This entire GW scam started because liberals just CANNOT accept the fact that there are things which Government cannot control. The liberal mantra is that everything can be controlled by man, even nature. Their arrogance knows no boundaries.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chett
Why would you wish to reduce CO2? It makes the plants grow among other things. It is not poison!


Really?

Go ahead and grab 5 of your closest friends in a super small sealed room except for a tiny 2 inch hole in the door to get fresh air in.

Tell me how that works out of you
.


There is so much garbage on this BB in regards to climate change that one begins to think that 20% of this world is just hopeless.

ALL the peer reviewed published scientific studies have concluded Global climate change is real and is detrimental to our future.

That is the science and what the data is telling us. Not some blowhard on tv, not some STOLEN EMAILS out of context but real science.

That is what you should be learning.

That is what you should strive to understand.

The science for God sakes not RIGHT WING MEDIA.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by AllexxisF1
 





ALL the peer reviewed published scientific studies have concluded Global climate change is real and is detrimental to our future.

Well, when you hijack the peer review process, what do you expect?


“Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists

Dissenting viewpoints on warming were shut out regardless of their scientific merit

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, Nov 23, 2009

One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from the “climategate” scandal has been references to efforts by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications.

Among the thousands of emails and documents hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week are several references to an agenda to shut down scientific debate on global warming by stifling counter-evidence from other scientists.

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

In another of the emails, Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), says that the journal in question, Climate Research, “encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’”.

Wigley noted that the publisher of the journal should be told that it is being “perceived” as a vehicle of “misinformation”, adding that the word “perceived” should be emphasized because “whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about– it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”

Wigley also wrote that a group of 50+ scientists could be gotten together to put their names to a letter to add weight to the claim and hopefully help to remove the editorial board of the journal.

Other emails show that some of the scientists declined to make their data available to independent scientists whose views they disagreed with, clear evidence that they were simply unwilling to engage in scientific debate – a core ethic of the scientific community.

www.prisonplanet.com...
I can tell you from experience that the "peer review process" is a complete joke. Conservative professors submitting papers have virtually no chance of getting papers published. That is a FACT.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Chett
 


Why wouldn't they ratify it? He can make them do anything he wants by buying them off it seems. It's how they roll, and no one seems to be ashamed of it, so I fail to see why that policy wouldn't work with this too.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Chett
 


Why wouldn't they ratify it? He can make them do anything he wants by buying them off it seems. It's how they roll, and no one seems to be ashamed of it, so I fail to see why that policy wouldn't work with this too.


Sadly you may right. Kyoto didn't get ratified, I just keep hoping for the best, in fact I visualize it all the time. What can it hurt there might be something to this 'intent thing'. (And yes I have contacted all my congress/senators, including those from all addresses from where I have ever lived not just the current ones. Hope and action)



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1

Originally posted by Chett
Why would you wish to reduce CO2? It makes the plants grow among other things. It is not poison!


Really?

Go ahead and grab 5 of your closest friends in a super small sealed room except for a tiny 2 inch hole in the door to get fresh air in.

Tell me how that works out of you
.


There is so much garbage on this BB in regards to climate change that one begins to think that 20% of this world is just hopeless.

ALL the peer reviewed published scientific studies have concluded Global climate change is real and is detrimental to our future.

That is the science and what the data is telling us. Not some blowhard on tv, not some STOLEN EMAILS out of context but real science.

That is what you should be learning.

That is what you should strive to understand.

The science for God sakes not RIGHT WING MEDIA.


We should ban H2O while we are at it, that stuff is really bad for you.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
While I dont buy into the anthropocentric view of global warming really.

I have noticed the weather has been very wierd as of late.

Where I am, Winter is getting pushed back farther, and lasting longer.

We have always had atleast 2-3 snowfalls before thanksgiving and this year we havent had any yet.

My first year at University, the month of january we had no snow and it was 50's outside. I can remember being outside and playing soccer in shorts and t-shirt during this. And this was in CANADA!

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

One thing I would love for a global warming expert to explain to me is this.

IF we're putting particulate into the atmosphere that prevents the ESCAPE of solar radiation, why doesnt that same particulate block the INCOMING of solar radiation? That part never made sense to me.

[edit on 11/25/2009 by VonDoomen]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllexxisF1

Go ahead and grab 5 of your closest friends in a super small sealed room except for a tiny 2 inch hole in the door to get fresh air in.

Tell me how that works out of you
.




what about water? too much CO2 will crowd out oxygen, thereby suffocating you. too much water will do the same, obviously.

is water a poison?

hyperbole, unrelated (biological effects vs atmospheric) grasping at straws and a condescending smiley to round off your arrogant conduct. congratulations, now we really know, how believers act in defeat! let me spell it out more clearly to you, yesterday's believers will be tomorrow's deniers. whom the shoe fits.


[edit on 2009.11.25 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Its all about balance. We need it all.

however he is true in pointing out that CO2 is food for plants.

Ive often thought that the increase in CO2 would spur an evolution in plants thats are much better at "eating" more CO2.

It does create a new Niche, and niches are always filled eventually.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Blah, blah and blah.


Defeat?

Really.

Show me one scientific peer reviewed study that proves climate change is not happening.

Just one.

I dare you.

Moreover, the person who made that idiotic statement that CO2 is not a poisonous gas was totally incorrect. CO2 to human beings is a gas that can be poisonous if it supersedes the level of oxygen. Just ask the people aboard the space station if too much CO2 isn't poisonous.

But lets get back on topic shall we.

You have ZERO! evidence that proves Global Climate Change is not happening. Nothing, nada, zero.

What I have backing up our assertion is the worlds leading climatologists with massive....MASSIVE....MASSIVE amounts of peer reviewed scientific data.

You say its not happening then where is your evidence.

*crickets*







[edit on 25-11-2009 by AllexxisF1]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Its all about balance. We need it all.

however he is true in pointing out that CO2 is food for plants.


carbon dioxide is plant food. i never disputed that, it was just a quote in a quote.

CO2 is an essential compound, the fact that our metabolism is constantly producing it (therefore no shortage) doesn't change that. there's a condition of too little CO2 which leads to hyperventilation.

the entire ordeal goes a long way of showing that anything can be made the creed of the majority by gov't supported manipulation. a real shame that it took this long and an even greater shame that the believers will predictably make a complete spectacle out of their own demise.

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


Originally posted by AllexxisF1

Defeat?

Really.

Show me one scientific peer reviewed study that proves climate change is not happening.



i know according to you people, decisions should be made only by ivy league while the rest has to swallow all the BS that they can come up with, not to mention embrace, no, enjoy their dictatorship.

let me write that out to you in detail, it's not the job of peer reviewed literature to outline how the Earth's or a country's resources are supposed to be allocated. these resources belong to the people (at least that's the official line) assuming any other stance is inherently totalitarian.


i suggest you take a look at the main thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


it's long enough i think and i don't need a shrink to tell me what




; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;



from www.abovetopsecret.com...

means. if genuine (let's face it, the most likely are) they are going down in flames, because that's just one quote out of hundreds. The damage inflicted upon the scientific community will be tremendous, but it's their own fault, this fallout was going to happen and the only ones who talked about it were those who've been ridiculed, slandered (Exxon shill, etc), ignored or silenced. something's got to give and if i had the choice i know who should rightfully pay for all this.

PS: put the Gore on TV and rip him a new one, maybe then the cult will finally crumble without further senseless ado.

[edit on 2009.11.25 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
d/p

[edit on 2009.11.25 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I can tell you from experience that the "peer review process" is a complete joke. Conservative professors submitting papers have virtually no chance of getting papers published. That is a FACT.


No it is not.

In fact, that is what some of the emails revealed. The AGW crowd complained that the anti-AGW group were getting published in too many journals and sought to boycott submissions to those publications.

Of course, that is not to say your broader point about the peer review process is invalid.

I agree. It is pathetically broken.

Take for example:

The Biotech Puppeteers.

Sounds sufficiently broken to me.


On the current subject here is more material for you viewing pleasure:



Also an interesting view from the New Scientist:

Hacked archive provides fodder for climate sceptics

And a searchable version of the emails that exposed this nonsense:

CRU Emails

[edit on 25-11-2009 by loam]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiouslyaloof
 


It's approximately 200 pages - I'll post it on the Climategate Copenhagen thread along with the released email links to keep it all in the same place.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


LOL what a load of baloney Scientists did know why climate was cooling these last few years its called the Pacific La Nina current which plays a part in cooling....
heres a link
Pacific La Nina current

[edit on 25-11-2009 by loner007]


looks like some people hadnt read this so i repost it with another link

La Nina Pacific



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
On the issue of CO2 you could probably get a return from a search engine saying that CO2 worsens "climate change" this is just me speculating, but it would show that while, CO2 is/was the big offender in "global warming" it is also included in "climate change" so we are snookered whichever which way. It has been shown that CO2 levels follow temperature changes, rather than cause them, maybe a partial explanation for that would be decomposition in rising temperatures, the plants that nicked all the CO2 then give it up as they die off in sudden temperature rises, (they do this whenever they die anyway) "global warming" deals with temperatures at the Earth's surface, "climate change" deals with er, climate change. Here's a link about CO2 in past temperature events,

www.grist.org...

[edit on 25-11-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Since one of the members keep coming back to peer reviewed papers as a defense of Global Climate positions, let me refresh people's memories regarding the famous Sokal peer review hoax:



Prof. Sokal submitted an article titled, Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, to a scholarly journal, Social Text, which prided itself on its postmodern and avant-garde point of view. The article was a typical cut-and-paste, tongue-in-cheek construction of a high-flown thesis using scientific jargon and literary theories to claim that quantum physics supports radical left-wing ideas. After it was published, Sokal exposed his hoax in another article published in Lingua Franca. He wrote:

"To test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies - whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross - publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions? The answer, unfortunately, is yes..."

Sokal showed how the editors and peer-reviewers of this important academic journal had been easily duped by nonsense that was deliberately fabricated just to test their competence.

He explains the significance of his hoax:

"Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously... I assert that Lacan's psychoanalytic speculations have been confirmed by recent work in quantum field theory. Even nonscientist readers might well wonder what in heavens' name quantum field theory has to do with psychoanalysis; certainly my article gives no reasoned argument to support such a link... I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject..."

It is important to understand the seriousness of the hoax in Sokal's own words:

The fundamental silliness of my article lies, however, not in its numerous solecisms but in the dubiousness of its central thesis and of the "reasoning"' adduced to support it... I assemble a pastiche - Derrida and general relativity, Lacan and topology, Irigaray and quantum gravity - held together by vague rhetoric... Nowhere in all of this is there anything resembling a logical sequence of thought; one finds only citations of authority, plays on words, strained analogies, and bald assertions...

What's more surprising is how readily they accepted my implication that the search for truth in science must be subordinated to a political agenda, and how oblivious they were to the article's overall illogic...

The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy. The editors of Social Text liked my article because they liked its conclusion: that 'the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project.' They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion...

I resorted to parody for a simple pragmatic reason. The targets of my critique have by now become a self-perpetuating academic subculture that typically ignores (or disdains) reasoned criticism from the outside. In such a situation, a more direct demonstration of the subculture's intellectual standards was required. But how can one show that the emperor has no clothes? Satire is by far the best weapon; and the blow that can't be brushed off is the one that's self-inflicted. I offered the Social Text editors an opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual rigor. Did they meet the test? I don't think so. I say this not in glee but in sadness. After all, I'm a leftist too..."

Sokal concludes:

"Social Text's acceptance of my article exemplifies the intellectual arrogance of Theory - meaning postmodernist literary theory - carried to its logical extreme."

Sokal angered the whole liberal arts establishment because he had exposed its pretentiousness. But one of his supporters cynically remarked, "What passes for theory in academic circles is the intellectual equivalent of bubble gum, churned out solely in order to keep the otherwise useless at work."

Alan Sokal played his remarkable hoax to illustrate the point that without better checks and balances in place, patently false information and analysis is being disseminated and accepted as 'true.' His hoax shows serious weaknesses in the peer-review process itself. These weaknesses are not restricted to journals such as Social Text. They are pervasive in the academy, and especially in the treatment and understanding of India and its culture, as I will be arguing.

Furthermore, the problem also exists in reverse: Many articles are not published even after they have been critiqued (and even acclaimed) by the world's foremost authorities in some of the disciplines involved, simply because they undermine reputations of some academic icons.

This essay does not take any stand on either side of the universalism/relativism debate in philosophy that Sokal is involved in. My reason for starting it with the Sokal Hoax is merely to illustrate the fallibility of the peer-review system, in order to convince the reader not to dismiss my thesis simply because it raises the very real possibility that many who pride themselves on having been vetted by "peer-review" are on shaky ground.




www.outlookindia.com...

This example is far from the exception. On other threads, I exposed some of the tactics used by professors in getting past the peer review process, so I won't repeat them here.
Suffice it to say, peer review is nothing more than the academic equivalent of the corporate "Good Ol' Boys Network", corrupt through and through. Corruption knows no bounds when it comes to money and pride. It exists not only in corporations and governments, but in virtually every aspect of academia.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I suspect Gore is cursing whomever invented the internet...

God bless the hackers!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join