Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 





I am not talking about "disagreements", but about LIES, publishing FALSE information KNOWINGLY trying to push the AGW hoax... I am talking about the main proponents of AGW trying to stop any scientist from publishing or coming forward with evidence that contradicts the AGW claim... I am talking about the AGW scientists being caught time after time, after time LYING ...


None of your assertions bare out, the exact emails etc... have been proven time and again to not be what contrarians claim they are but yet are still clung to by people like you like a nursing baby to it's mother.

Here is just one of several reviews or investigations into the Climategate Emails. Let me know when you have actually, thoroughly read it.

Some excerpts for everyone else:

16. On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.

17. On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly
unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. Such action would have required collusion with multiple scientists in various independent organisations which we consider highly improbable.



20. The central implication of the allegations here is that in carrying out their work, both in the choices they made of data and the way in which it was handled, CRU scientists intended to bias the scientific conclusions towards a specific result and to set aside inconvenient evidence. More specifically, it was implied in the
allegations that this should reduce the confidence ascribed to the conclusions in Chapter 6 of the IPCC 4th Report, Working Group 1 (WG1).

21. We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. In particular, on the question of the composition of temperature reconstructions, we found no evidence of exclusion of other published temperature reconstructions that would show a very different picture. The general discussion of sources of uncertainty in the text is extensive, including reference to divergence. In this respect it represented a significant advance on the IPCC Third Assessment
Report (TAR).

22. On the allegation that the phenomenon of “divergence” may not have been properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.

24. On the allegations in relation to withholding data, in particular concerning the small sample size of the tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula, CRU did not withhold the underlying raw data (having correctly directed the
single request to the owners). But it is evidently true that access to the raw data was not simple until it was archived in 2009 and that this delay can rightly be criticized on general principles. In the interests of transparency, we believe that CRU should have ensured that the data they did not own, but on which their
publications relied, was archived in a more timely way.

25. On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.

27. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails
might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance.


Context matters.




posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.


EXCLUSIVE: UN scientist refutes Daily Mail claim he said Himalayan glacier error was politically motivated


Totally inexcusable.
“Journalism is not peer review.” Apparently journalism isn’t much more than the children’s game of telephone these days. Certainly it doesn’t seem to involve the use of a real telephone.
Lal’s phone number is easy to find online, and I called him myself, even though it was after midnight in India (I hoped he was on travel), but he answered it immediately.
He said these were “the most vilest allegations” and denied that he ever made such assertions. He said “I didn’t put it [the 2035 claim] in to impress policymakers…. We reported the facts about science as we knew them and as was available in the literature.”
He told me:
Our role was to bring out the factual science. The fact is the IPCC has been very conservative.
Note that Science News repeats the charge “that Lal’s committee didn’t investigate challenges to glacier data” but does not bother to repeat Lal’s assertion in the Daily Mail piece — which he made again to me — that he never saw any challenges to the glacier data. Certainly enough charges and counter charges have been made on this specific point that it should be looked into, but simply asserting it doesn’t make it true.
One top climate scientist associated with the IPCC speaking to me off the record today said, “I know Murari Lal to be a straight-shooter. I take him at his word.”
Lal said to me, “I was a lead author for the second assessment, third assessment, and fourth assessment and this is the first time in my life that I’ve been attacked like this.”



Science News asserts:
The IPCC report was supposed to reflect only peer-reviewed science. Not the speculation of scientists, which the initial source of that 2035 figure (Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain) recently acknowledged it was. Nor should magazine articles or gray literature reports – like the World Wildlife Fund document that repeated the speculative 2035 figure – become the foundation for IPCC conclusions. Which is why IPCC specifically prohibits reliance on such documents.
Interestingly, I thought that was true, too, but I decided to check with two top IPCC scientists, and they both confirmed to me that in fact, the IPCC does allow gray literature reports. And the IPCC explains this here (see Annex 2).
Lal told me:
We were allowed to cite gray literature provided that it looked to us to be good science.
One leading climate scientist said he had thought that in the Fourth Assessment, the IPCC was going to clamp down more on this.
To me, the peer-reviewed science contains more than enough to write reports on — see my summary of the literature in 2009, “The year climate science caught up with what top scientists have been saying privately for years.” I think the IPCC needs to stop this practice of using gray literature, especially for quantitative matters.
In any case, the 2035 figure was wrong — you can find the origin of the mistake here. And you can find the IPCC’s retraction here. And here’s what I think the IPCC should have done — “Memo to IPCC: Please reanalyze ALL of your conclusions about melting ice and sea level rise.” The IPCC messed this up big time, and I’ll have more to say on that Tuesday.
The bottom line here: Reporters and major media outlets must stop parroting everything they read. If that’s all you’re going to do, you deserve to continue losing readers.


Gray doesn't equal fake.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
How typical, anytime anyone shows Climategate for the farce that it was... a thread dies.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

1st, this thread isn't about "Climategate." Some members know that pointing out the obvious fabrications, the broken "models" and the un-provable hypothesis of AGW to its sycophants will derail anything.

2nd, the fact is, Boxers witnesses wholly failed to support your AGW fairy tale. the best they could do was fear-monger the low-information public with unsupported projections and predictions.

The several witnesses who testified on observation, facts and history clearly established that the "science" is NOT "settled," and that "catastrophic warming" is little more than publicly-funded conjecture.

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 8-8-2013 by jdub297 because: 2nd



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Kali74
 

1st, this thread isn't about "Climategate." Some members know that pointing out the obvious fabrications, the broken "models" and the un-provable hypothesis of AGW to its sycophants will derail anything.

2nd, the fact is, Boxers witnesses wholly failed to support your AGW fairy tale. the best they could do was fear-monger the low-information public with unsupported projections and predictions.

The several witnesses who testified on observation, facts and history clearly established that the "science" is NOT "settled," and that "catastrophic warming" is little more than publicly-funded conjecture.

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 8-8-2013 by jdub297 because: 2nd


1) Maybe you should tell the person that brought up Climategate that they're off-topic. These being public forums I have the right to reply to any post I choose.

2) Boxers witnesses did just fine, it's not their fault you don't understand science and think that winning a debate is nothing more than shutting the other person down and not allowing them to speak.

Science is settled on the matter, quit driving in the slow lane.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Boxers witnesses did just fine, it's not their fault you don't understand science and think that winning a debate is nothing more than shutting the other person down and not allowing them to speak.

Science is settled on the matter, quit driving in the slow lane.

How sad for you that you must rely upon speculation, hearsay and conjecture about the "Boxer Hearing."

There was no "debate;" the witnesses made their presentations and entertained questions. Your fellow AGW dogmatics were entirely lost in the quest for factual support and analysis. See CSPAN if you dare.

The unfortunate truth for the faithful is that the veils are being stripped away from the false idol and the realization that "climate science" is no more "settled" than the climate itself is becoming more evident every day.

Whine all you want. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

It is almost laughable how pathetic the faithful cling to their gods and berate the unfaithful.

Any reasonably well-structured Google will reveal that the "science" is NOT settled; even Pachauri, Jones, Hansen et al have been reduced to the "yes, but" position typical of hoaxsters trying to salvage some last bits of credibility.

How sad for you, indeed.

jw .
edit on 8-8-2013 by jdub297 because: indeed



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Oh quit with your religious nonsense. Can you ever discuss this topic without such dogmatic views of your own? Of course you would have to actually want to discuss the topic rather than just wanting to tell people how to feel about it and dismiss them as stupid or zealots if they disagree with you.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jdub297
 

Oh quit with your religious nonsense. Can you ever discuss this topic without such dogmatic views of your own? Of course you would have to actually want to discuss the topic rather than just wanting to tell people how to feel about it and dismiss them as stupid or zealots if they disagree with you.

You want a "discussion?" I'm all verklempt.

When the AGW acolytes admit that their "models" have not been able to "model" anything, we'll have a discussion.
When the "rising sea level" fear-mongers admit that their "predictions" of inundation were wrong, we'll have a discussion.
When the "2 degrees C" anointed admit that this is nothing more than a politically-driven number, we,ll have a discussion.
Do we need to go into the dozens of exaggerations, hyperbole and disproven "projections" to see that catastrophic AGW is losing its global impact?
Your public-money funding is drying up, and the "studies" are beginning to acknowledge the uncertainty.
(Heinz Foundation rethinking MILLIONS in pro-AGW funding:
hosted.ap.org...)

When the faithful are willing to accept rational discussion, you will see that everyone agrees that we can "do something" to help the environment; but that fear-mongering is no longer going to be productive.,
edit on 8-8-2013 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


When you can drop the hyperbole and ad hominem ...
I'll be here



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Acolytes, fear-mongering and anointed? Hardly the "ad hominem" directed at skeptics.
And every one correct taken in the context presented.

Your skin is too thin or you do not want to engage.
But we already knew that.

On topic:

Compare the speakers' statements with the "prevailing wisdom" the MSM pushes despite the essence of the testimony.

Heidi Cullen, Chief Climatologist, Climate Central

Frank Nutter, President, Reinsurance Association of America

KC Golden, Policy Director, Climate Solutions

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Robert P. Murphy, Senior Economist, Institute for Energy Research

Jennifer Francis, Research Professor, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University

Scott Doney, Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Margaret Leinin, Executive Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University

Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado

Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist IV, University of Alabama, Huntsville

I have read ALL of their submissions and seen most of the testimony/questioning. It was NOT what Boxer/Obama/Hansen hoped for. If you cannot admit that, then you choose ignorance over reality.

When you review the testimony and the submitted texts, you will see that the "science" is NOT "settled," and that we are not facing a global, or national, crisis.

Sort of takes the wind out of your sails, no?

Discuss among yourselves.

jw





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join