Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[maure 1]

It's like someone put maure on TV.

"Like" indeed, "as if", for it is you (and the likes of the late Murray) who are, in fact, on TV. Granted, you cannot tell the difference between entertainment and fact which is why you consider yourself the center of the universe and demand the camera be always on you.

And yes, what I said is that you are no more than a caricature of someone like me. You cannot conceive the following... but do hear that I take no pride in that fact. Amusement, yes.

Try hard.

[cavallino 2]

The way 'global warming skepticism' works is :make an outlandish claim based on very flimsy evidence 'water vapour, not co2 is responsible for warming', 'changes in the sun's intensity are responsible', 'things have been cooling since 1998', 'there was a hotter medieval warming period', and then the claims are of course comprehensively, systematically debunked. But by then, they're already peddling something new. That is so typically embodied in the discussion with Plimer - he simply doesn't bother responding to his past false claims, constantly trying to steer the debate to some new statement.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

The way 'global warming skepticism' works is :make an outlandish claim based on very flimsy evidence 'water vapour, not co2 is responsible for warming', 'changes in the sun's intensity are responsible', 'things have been cooling since 1998', 'there was a hotter medieval warming period', and then the claims are of course comprehensively, systematically debunked. But by then, they're already peddling something new. That is so typically embodied in the discussion with Plimer - he simply doesn't bother responding to his past false claims, constantly trying to steer the debate to some new statement.

As opposed to fixing the results, cherry picking data, losing data that does not fit the model, peer reviewing within a close circle that think along similar lines, suppressing alternate views, manipulating media, refusing to supply source data, ignoring other sources, mixing real and hypothetical results, using data that has been demonstrated to be contaminated.

And you call that "good science"?

Give me a break.

[maure 1]

Let's assume Cavallino is misinformed rather than dishonest (yes, I'm laughing too).

You see, recently we have all found out where the facts were hidden exactly, namely, in CRU. We now know, for instance, how hard those GW climate scientists have worked to hide facts and data. In fact, we even know _how_ they've done this. Moreover, we have also found out how those GW climate scientists have come to "fix" analyses by means of "tricks" and why their results are all so alike. As a footnote, we have also found out how the review process has been reinvented by those GW climate scientists to prevent disagreeing research from being published.

If you really want to discuss the "facts", please start with that _single_ yamal tree, yes that one... "The magical faraway tree: a larch in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, sampled by Dr Keith Briffa, has been called 'the most influential tree in the world'"

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

More cherry-picking of data - Russia despite being 12.5% of global landmass only had a relatively small number of its weather stations are included. Had more been included, it is claimed that the results would not show a warming trend:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/

[Piotr 0]

More cherry-picking of data - Russia despite being 12.5% of global landmass only had a relatively small number of its weather stations are included. Had more been included, it is claimed that the results would not show a warming trend:

http://www.theregist...d_says_sceptic/

Yup, read this one too on Climateaudit.org. The scary part is that Antarctic is represented by ONE (yes, one for the whole continent) weather station. California by four stations all located on the coast. New Zealand has several, and they are used to represent vast areas of the ocean. Nope, nothing outlandish about that! Oh, Cavallino, please show me that "claim" that Earth has been cooling since 1998 was "debunked?" Do you mean that silly claim by the Met Office that the last decade was "the hottest ever?" Please, even the hockey stick Team agreed they cannot find warming since 1998. The Met will end up like Al Gore with his claim that ice will melt in the Arctic in 5 years - looking foolish. Or may be not, as the retraction will be printed on page 19 of one local paper somewhere. Like the retraction of the claim that the current circulation in the Atlantic is slowing down (widely reported by the press in the early '00 - retraction issued in 2007 was hardly reported by anyone.

[Piotr 0]

The way 'global warming skepticism' works is :make an outlandish claim based on very flimsy evidence 'water vapour, not co2 is responsible for warming', 'changes in the sun's intensity are responsible', 'things have been cooling since 1998', 'there was a hotter medieval warming period', and then the claims are of course comprehensively, systematically debunked. But by then, they're already peddling something new. That is so typically embodied in the discussion with Plimer - he simply doesn't bother responding to his past false claims, constantly trying to steer the debate to some new statement.

Please, tell me that you do NOT get your information from Real Climate? Because every claim on that blog was completely debunked on Climateaudit.

Oh, I just read in your post... wait, I need to pick myself off the floor... now got hiccups from laughter... OK, good. You are a bit behind. You know that even the hockey stick Team is now trying to revise their model to accomodate the MWP (medieval warm period)??? Because even Mann, Briffa, and Jones had to admit that there WAS an MWP, even though their models fail to show it. You see, the absence of well documented MWP in the original "hockey stick" diagram was the reason why Mann has to continuously "update" it (in 2000, 2003, 2008, etc). The "outlandish claims" from the Team state either that "it wasn't all that warm" or, alternatively that "it was a local event." Neither is supported by any facts (except their famed models).

That's what makes the "leaked" e-mails from CRU so explosive. In the e-mails Briffa HIMSELF admits that he himself believes that the temps where hotter then than now. Mannand Jones then proceed to discuss how to alter graphs as to show that 20th century was hotter, over Briffa's obvious discomfort over this issue.

Dude, you really should read more...

[maure 1]

More cherry-picking of data - Russia despite being 12.5% of global landmass only had a relatively small number of its weather stations are included. Had more been included, it is claimed that the results would not show a warming trend:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/

Those register folk... naughty bunch.

[dribbler 6]

It makes me laugh when I hear someone say "the soloution is......." because every soloution takes mankind into consideration way too much. I think we need to think of ourselves as secondary importance to give us a fighting chance.

Copenhagen will fail for many predicatble reasons; mixed agenda, ignorance, inflexibility and denial, to name a few. But even if there was universal agreement for change, I still believe any notions would be flawed because they don't address the single biggest reason for man's demise; man himself.

So, let's imagine a world where the leaders grow a pair of bollocks and openly admit to the real problem and the real soloutions. It's too ugly for them to say, they are too afraid to say it but if someone doesn't, we're screwed royally. I wonder if anyone dare? I feel a good film plot coming on....

We need to control the world's population. To start with, we need to stop people from reproducing. It becomes illegal to have children apart from exceptions, closely policed. The exception would be good stock; people who have significant intelligence. These will be the top breeders. As I say, others below will be stopped from breeding but called upon if needed. Stupid people will not be allowed to have children. This will be judged using various tests.

The next stage will be to exterminate worthless humans. Anyone in prison for murder, rape or paedophilia will be exterminated. This saves valuable resource and stops these people from re-offending aswell as halting a blood line of scum.

We do this for several decades and re-assess the situation. Next up is withdrawal of medicines and research into elimination of disease. Then, with only intelligent, healthy, loving and beautiful people left who understand and adopt the concept of replenishment, we have a f*cking big fight.

Whoever is left deserves a place on earth.

If we do this, we will be the Brawn GP of the human race. Lean, mean and ready to start again.

But we won't do this because it's a little bit uncomfortable and personally, I quite like my car running rich and my heating turned up a little too high.

So, we're f*cked. Who in Copenhagen wants to say that, I wonder?

[cavallino 2]

More cherry-picking of data - Russia despite being 12.5% of global landmass only had a relatively small number of its weather stations are included. Had more been included, it is claimed that the results would not show a warming trend:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/

Typical. An unheard of Russian 'think tank' with what seem at first sight to be rather dubious motives posts something on their website. The 'skeptics' run with it. Swallowing every word they hear right away simply because it confirms their own ideas. By the time these claims are examined, and debunked in detail like all the other ones, you would have moved on to something new.

[cavallino 2]

Maybe if the denialists showed the same degree of skepticism towards anyone who makes claims against AGW, I would be inclined to take them seriously. All the chief deniers from the thread jumped at the so called Russian fraud, cheered in unison, all skepticism stored away to use against the next claim supporting GW.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

Oh and Piotr, I don't just read Real Climate, though I do fear for people who get all their information off cliamteaudit..

[cavallino 2]

What's absolutely true is that regardless of the GW attention-whirl, we all have different perspectives on the matter by virtue of where each of us come from.

You however are the only one who pretends to be an authority on everything, in particular academia, and yet have never presented any credentials, or given any reason to believe you are in general better informed than the manyi ntelligent people on this forum. So your stories of having seen it all and knowing it all are dreadfully tiresome.

BBC is most definitely biased but then with its unique source of funding and links to Government this is inevitable. They have a self-admitted policy for bias towards GW. Which for a news organisation that is supposed to be objective and cover both sides is a little odd, don't you think?

That's a misstatement. Where does it say the BBC has a policy for ignoring scientific studies that are contrary to the global warming theory?

Actually, it works out to the contrary. Journalists, used to presenting two sides of a story, will often seek out someone just to present a contrary view, just to present a different view. That's what Ian Plimer has been capitalizing on (see above), receiving huge coverage in the Australian media, mainstream dailies (on the editorial pages!), news shows. The guy is an inveterate fraud, and it is a travesty to give him the same space as scientists or journalists with integrity (even Monbiot, whatever your views on his stances are, is prepared to admit to problems with the East Anglia emails, whereas Plimer won't budge an inch on things he has been conclusively wrong on). If the BBC have been denying people of his nature attention, more power to them.

I'm glad you have so much faith in peer review. Everything you've said just confirms that it is a process I do not believe in as being objective.

Works better than every other thing, before and since, and has been proven to work better than every other bloody thing. Also, some very poor, flawed research gets through from both sides of the spectrum, see this for example - http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/mckitrick6.php

You also do us all a mis-justice. Academics are not the only people who understand this stuff and there are savvy people outside the system who don't have to rely on experts.

If someone goes to the trouble of understanding all this stuff, they have already done enough work to have credentials in academia. If someone, having done that, has no credentials to show, it would be rather unusual..

I object to media treatment of GW - why is BBC refusing as a policy decision to publish anti GW stories? Surely shouldn't we have balance?

I am probably repeating someone else, but are they also not publishing holocaust denial stories? Or dinosaurs in the 5000 old creationist world theories?

Pro GW supporters should not accept the excuses and demand an explanation for their unprofessional behaviour. This is not an attack on GW its a expose of unethical and unscientific processes. These processes must stop.

Wahtever, that pales, absolutely pales to the stuff peddled by the 'skeptics' (btw skeptics are getting a bad name unnecessarily, these are conspiracy theorists plain and simple). If you hate bad science, maybe you can show 'balance' by mentioning the bad science peddled by people like Ian Plimer? All your talk of exposing bad science is bollocks, you have an agenda.

No, it isn't. Balance is a condition of equal share according to an agreed upon characteristic or attribute. There isn't any frigging moral magic of opinion of judgment involved whatsoever.

There isn't an obligation to give people time according to the amount of noise they make either.

Didn't you barf out whenever that the BBC was the best media in the world?

Of course it is. What's your point?

Wrong!!! BBC is actually legally obliged to be neutral - it is publicly-funded and the BBC

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Maybe if the denialists showed the same degree of skepticism towards anyone who makes claims against AGW, I would be inclined to take them seriously. All the chief deniers from the thread jumped at the so called Russian fraud, cheered in unison, all skepticism stored away to use against the next claim supporting GW.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

Oh and Piotr, I don't just read Real Climate, though I do fear for people who get all their information off cliamteaudit..

Fine Cav you carry on believing what you want. Its almost a religious belief for some.

The fact that you describe it as "denialist crap" speaks volumes about your objectivity. So will take anything you say with a pinch of salt.

I'll just sit here and wait the inevitable moment when people realise the emperor's new clothes aren't what they seem. I used to actually believe in GW - but changed once I found too many unanswered questions. So no Cav I don't have an agenda. I just hate bad science.

Sigh. I can use Google just as well as you and right back at you: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/regional.htm a study showing how the Russian temperature gauges are subject to heat island effects that have not been compensated for - the link you gave uses raw, unadjusted data.

Oh and the Russian temperature records have gaps and some started late.

I await your next Googled link refuting this with anticipation....

And as for the BBC - do your research. I'm not gonna do it for you; you'll find information about how they set their policy. Here's one to get you started - high profile news anchor and journalist. He should know: http://energy.probeinternational.org/bbc-policy-stifle-global-warming-science

Bad science baby. Bad science.

[maure 1]

You however are the only one who pretends to be an authority on everything, in particular academia, and yet have never presented any credentials, or given any reason to believe you are in general better informed than the manyi ntelligent people on this forum. So your stories of having seen it all and knowing it all are dreadfully tiresome.

Are you not trying to turn this thread into a personal attack because you cannot accept the facts hidden by CRU? Yes, you are... will we see now another of your "completely hypocritical" threads demanding my banning from this forum for turning threads into personal attacks?... only if we are lucky.

But it stands.

The CRU fiasco has given reason to all to reconsider what CRU has been giving as gospel. You speak around it. You speak away from it. You speak over it. Yet the words of CRU, not of the skeptics, are hurting the GW gospel... nothing new, of course, but the likes of you have been given good reason to reconsider. Friendly advise, take the opportunity.

I know how this all ends. I've seen it before, naturally, a few times over the years. In the end, the fraudulent/wrong/whatever academic wants to disappear quietly, having their careers made on a fiction and their ego not to hurt too much. You've spoken often of your own self-importance. I reckon you will also want to disappear quietly once the whole GW goes out like a puff on the storm of reality.

Refusing to even acknowledge a look into the "science" of CRU while demanding inquisition over the skeptics is naughty and made me smile. Thanks for that.

[maure 1]

Fine Cav you carry on believing what you want. Its almost a religious belief for some.

The fact that you describe it as "denialist crap" speaks volumes about your objectivity. So will take anything you say with a pinch of salt.

I'll just sit here and wait the inevitable moment when people realise the emperor's new clothes aren't what they seem. I used to actually believe in GW - but changed once I found too many unanswered questions. So no Cav I don't have an agenda. I just hate bad science.

Sigh. I can use Google just as well as you and right back at you: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/regional.htm a study showing how the Russian temperature gauges are subject to heat island effects that have not been compensated for - the link you gave uses raw, unadjusted data.

Oh and the Russian temperature records have gaps and some started late.

I await your next Googled link refuting this with anticipation....

And as for the BBC - do your research. I'm not gonna do it for you; you'll find information about how they set their policy. Here's one to get you started - high profile news anchor and journalist. He should know: http://energy.probeinternational.org/bbc-policy-stifle-global-warming-science

Bad science baby. Bad science.

Useless, I'm afraid. Cavallino's post (preceding yours) avoids _every_ single issue on the table. It is masterful in its clownishness. Examples not only abound, they are the only thing he uses.

When he speaks of skeptics, he deliberately ignores that there climatologists that disagree (only "inveterate fraud" exists for him).

When he speaks of peer review, he ignores the references from CRU as to how they are manipulating it. In addition to this, he fails to mention (this quite possibly due to his ignorance of the subject) that bypassing peer review is child's play.

Once again, he ignores those with credentials outside the GW sects to claim that all those in the GW sects are the only ones with credentials.

Later on, he addresses bias by claiming that oddball stories get balanced coverage, implying (for instance) that oddball holocaust deniers get as much air time as others (false and believable only to children).

A little down below, he suddenly realizes that "skeptic" is not a bad word (but a good one) so he changes approach quickly to launch the insults, namely, "conspiracy theorists".

There is also an embarrassed mention brutishly misconstruing balance presentation of arguments with the yells of mob lynching, a naive admission that is precisely why the GW sect gets more press than others... after all, who are the "hundreds of thousands" responsible for vandalism in Copenhagen? Skeptics? Nope. GW fanatics, yes.

More to laugh on, there is a ridiculous and unsupported claim that BBC provides the best media in the world. It is not a joke. He truly beliefs this as a credo so much so that it is fact and so what? Nothing buddy, BBC delivers the divine words, you are god, and the sound you hear constantly is not laughter by clapping.

There is also a comment hanging by fingernails that ends with "So find me one important story that they have refused to cover, that goes contrary to GW?" The answer is simple of course, THE INFORMATION UNCOVERED AT CRU and that he himself flatly refuses to address.

And last, a call to censorship. Nothing new. It is neither the first time nor the last he demands censorship. It's his nature as well as one of this most painful failures.

In sum, that's Cavallino for you: contradictory, fanatical, dishonest, and as lost as a 64 year-old academic hoping prayer will deliver an otherwise never deserved tenure.

[cavallino 2]

The fact that you describe it as "denialist crap" speaks volumes about your objectivity. So will take anything you say with a pinch of salt.

I'll just sit here and wait the inevitable moment when people realise the emperor's new clothes aren't what they seem. I used to actually believe in GW - but changed once I found too many unanswered questions. So no Cav I don't have an agenda. I just hate bad science.

Sigh. I can use Google just as well as you and right back at you: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/regional.htm a study showing how the Russian temperature gauges are subject to heat island effects that have not been compensated for - the link you gave uses raw, unadjusted data.

I didn't google anything, the link about the great Russian IEA fraud exposure is from one of my professors' own blog. And from what I can tell so far, someone went from the paper, which uses stations not included in the CRU models and arrives at similar resulrs to 'Russian stations excluded to hide absence of global warming', and then of course the deniers, like the three in this thread ran with it, posting links, back slapping each other, without the slightest effort to check your sources. And now, what do I do when I point that out - you post a new link, to detract from the discussion, instead of responding. And you will continue to do it again and again. Maybe instead of doing small hack jobs, by 'cherry picking' data yourself, you can go to the effort of running the same models and show us how you arrive at completely different results. And then you can begin explaining the wealth of other evidence for warming - satellite imagery, glaciers, sea levels, seasonal changes etc etc. Either you are spectacularly naive, or like Maura, like Ian Plimer you are practising intellectual dishonesty, for what purpose I cannot say, perhaps mere amusement?

Oh and the Russian temperature records have gaps and some started late.

Of course they have gaps, again, you have no understanding of data collection from such sources if you expect there to be no gaps.

And as for the BBC - do your research. I'm not gonna do it for you; you'll find information about how they set their policy. Here's one to get you started - high profile news anchor and journalist. He should know: http://energy.probeinternational.org/bbc-policy-stifle-global-warming-science

Yes, one guy resigned. What's your point? Did you show me an actual report of some merit disproving warming data that the BBC has ignored?

Are you not trying to turn this thread into a personal attack because you cannot accept the facts hidden by CRU?

No, I am just not going to let you get away with your false arguments from authority, and keep asking you to put your cards on the table, if you have any. Otherwise, your superciliousness is just annoying and completely unwarranted, learn to debate without belittling your opponent.

[maure 1]

I didn't google anything, the link about the great Russian IEA fraud exposure is from one of my professors' own blog. And from what I can tell so far, someone went from the paper, which uses stations not included in the CRU models and arrives at similar resulrs to 'Russian stations excluded to hide absence of global warming', and then of course the deniers, like the three in this thread ran with it, posting links, back slapping each other, without the slightest effort to check your sources. And now, what do I do when I point that out - you post a new link, to detract from the discussion, instead of responding. And you will continue to do it again and again. Maybe instead of doing small hack jobs, by 'cherry picking' data yourself, you can go to the effort of running the same models and show us how you arrive at completely different results. And then you can begin explaining the wealth of other evidence for warming - satellite imagery, glaciers, sea levels, seasonal changes etc etc. Either you are spectacularly naive, or like Maura, like Ian Plimer you are practising intellectual dishonesty, for what purpose I cannot say, perhaps mere amusement?

Of course they have gaps, again, you have no understanding of data collection from such sources if you expect there to be no gaps.

Yes, one guy resigned. What's your point? Did you show me an actual report of some merit disproving warming data that the BBC has ignored?

No, I am just not going to let you get away with your false arguments from authority, and keep asking you to put your cards on the table, if you have any. Otherwise, your superciliousness is just annoying and completely unwarranted, learn to debate without belittling your opponent.

As usual, you place the burden of proof away from those that make the claim, in this case the GW claim. I'm afraid it never works. Read the literature on any science. The responsibility always lies on those proposing the hypothesis not on others.

Look, data was manipulated. It's a fact now in the public domain. Results were manipulated. This is also in the public domain. You want to belief this is not going on anymore? You are free to do so but you are delusional if you think this a job for any other than the GW bigwigs and acolytes. It is their sole responsibility. There is no escaping this.

[maure 1]

... learn to debate without belittling your opponent.

I was laughing at your other pretends and I missed this one last phrase... perhaps your best and most naive joke so far. Boy, aren't you calling the kettle black. Hilarious. Truly. There is true desperation here, no doubt. Brilliant stuff, I grant you. Delightfully amusing. Thank you, contradiction man.

[Piotr 0]

I didn't google anything, the link about the great Russian IEA fraud exposure is from one of my professors' own blog. And from what I can tell so far, someone went from the paper, which uses stations not included in the CRU models and arrives at similar resulrs to 'Russian stations excluded to hide absence of global warming', and then of course the deniers, like the three in this thread ran with it, posting links, back slapping each other, without the slightest effort to check your sources. And now, what do I do when I point that out - you post a new link, to detract from the discussion, instead of responding. And you will continue to do it again and again. Maybe instead of doing small hack jobs, by 'cherry picking' data yourself, you can go to the effort of running the same models and show us how you arrive at completely different results. And then you can begin explaining the wealth of other evidence for warming - satellite imagery, glaciers, sea levels, seasonal changes etc etc. Either you are spectacularly naive, or like Maura, like Ian Plimer you are practising intellectual dishonesty, for what purpose I cannot say, perhaps mere amusement?

Of course they have gaps, again, you have no understanding of data collection from such sources if you expect there to be no gaps.

Yes, one guy resigned. What's your point? Did you show me an actual report of some merit disproving warming data that the BBC has ignored?

No, I am just not going to let you get away with your false arguments from authority, and keep asking you to put your cards on the table, if you have any. Otherwise, your superciliousness is just annoying and completely unwarranted, learn to debate without belittling your opponent.

Aha, here is the explanation of Cav's position.

1) WHO is "one of your professors" and what is he teaching?

2) Is it fraud because it dares to expose bad science routinely exhibited by the "Team"?

3)WHO, specifically, did "checking" of the missing stations in CRU (my guess is one of the "hockey stick" people)? My understading is that omission of these stations created an uptic of 0.64C in average temps. With these stations included, the temp. increase would be 1.9C instead of almost 2.5C. Rather significant, don't you think?

4) Did anyone at RealClimate explain WHY 40% of Russian data is simply missing with the rest likely inaccurate or outright fabricated by CRU? If the data is available "to check it's effects" WHY WASN'T IT USED IN THE FIRST PLACE????

5)Why all of the data omitted from the Russian stations is from the rural areas?

6) How about an explanation why there is data from only ONE station in Antarctic used to described the entire continent (and that station is on the shore - completely influenced by changing oceanic currents).

7) Why Phil Jones instructed his colleagues to destroy materials specifically requested by FOIA (a criminal act both in US and UK)?

Now, speaking of "intellectual dishonesty, if you bring in Ian Plimer, how about bringing the HEAD OF CRU ("the one guy" that resigned), Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and the rest of the Hockey Team? If I performed my job like they apparently do, I'd be fired in 5 minutes and likely lose my licenses in a week. Not to mention that none of my reports would have been approved for submittal to the state agencies.

Cav, here is MY challenge to you - answer the 7 above questions in a concise manner ( in one sentence per each) without calling any one names and using only facts, not opinions or points of view. I bet it cannot be done.

[Piotr 0]

I was laughing at your other pretends and I missed this one last phrase... perhaps your best and most naive joke so far. Boy, aren't you calling the kettle black. Hilarious. Truly. There is true desperation here, no doubt. Brilliant stuff, I grant you. Delightfully amusing. Thank you, contradiction man.

Ha ha ha! I missed that one too! A good one, Maure!

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

No, I am just not going to let you get away with your false arguments from authority, and keep asking you to put your cards on the table, if you have any. Otherwise, your superciliousness is just annoying and completely unwarranted, learn to debate without belittling your opponent.

As Maure pointed out already - your audacity is rather breath-taking. Hardly a post goes by in this thread without you sneering, patronising, referring to people in derogatory tones.... or labelling people as deniers - unbelievers perhaps? I did say that it was almost religious...

Cav you know nothing about me or my understanding of the subject, nor my intellectual capacity to deal with it.

You made one fatal mistake though - what was the phrase? "from one of my professors' own blog"

Very revealing... So you are in the "hockey stick club". Hardly surprising.

As Maure has also pointed out the burden of proof is on the GW believers to prove - and why, pray do you get so upset when people point out issues with data? Shouldn't a scientific approach be to revisit, amend, collaborate to get it right?

Imagine if you discovered issues in your organisation's finances - with people making up expense claims, hiding figures, secretly clubbing together to prevent the truth coming out, mixing real and made up financial information, not responding to FOIA requests, cherry-picking data to make things fit, basing calculations on information which you believed to be incorrect, suppressing the media, making personal attacks on people. Would you ignore it? How would you feel if you challenged them and you got berated? Would their behaviour be ethical, moral or legal? Now imagine it is public money that is stake - i.e. taxpayers' money. Surely you would say or do something or would you accept and ignore it?

I think you know the answer to this is obvious. You'd be a fool not to say something. Ethically and morally it is wrong.

Why then should we accept this behaviour from scientists?

[Max Mosley 2]

The biggest of all boo-boos in Maure's posts on this subject is highlighted very well by Chris. You see, Maure makes a mistake typical of scientists the world over. They tend to think that science policy decisions are scientific matters. They are not - or at least not exclusively.

There are many situations in which it would be foolish to wait until the science (or economics, or sociology etc) is completely settled before taking any precautions. Taking action to minimise credible risks is just common sense. We don't wait until psychologists can predict exactly who will next try to kill us before avoiding dark alleys late at night. We don't wait until doctors understand exactly what the effects of cannabis are before telling children not to risk using it. Very violent porn was recently banned in Britain despite no consensus among experts on whether it really poses a threat or not. A fundamental part of good governance (and sensible living) is avoiding plausible risks.

And so, the question is not whether scientists can prove their hypothesis correct but whether the skeptics are right to dismiss the possibility altogether.

[Max Mosley 2]

Cav you know nothing about me or my understanding of the subject, nor my intellectual capacity to deal with it.

This is one thing Maure and Cav (and myself) agree on. It's simply not possible for non-experts to get to grips with such a complicated subject. There's no one on this website who can really assess much of the science of AGW thoroughly enough for my satisfaction, including myself.

[Piotr 0]

The biggest of all boo-boos in Maure's posts on this subject is highlighted very well by Chris. You see, Maure makes a mistake typical of scientists the world over. They tend to think that science policy decisions are scientific matters. They are not - or at least not exclusively.

There are many situations in which it would be foolish to wait until the science (or economics, or sociology etc) is completely settled before taking any precautions. Taking action to minimise credible risks is just common sense. We don't wait until psychologists can predict exactly who will next try to kill us before avoiding dark alleys late at night. We don't wait until doctors understand exactly what the effects of cannabis are before telling children not to risk using it. Very violent porn was recently banned in Britain despite no consensus among experts on whether it really poses a threat or not. A fundamental part of good governance (and sensible living) is avoiding plausible risks.

And so, the question is not whether scientists can prove their hypothesis correct but whether the skeptics are right to dismiss the possibility altogether.

You didn't just write this with a straight face, did you????

You have GOT to be kidding me.

The entire principle of science as we know it is for a scientist to formulate a hypothesis, test it, and to determine if it's correct or not. If after doing it he still believes it's correct, he publishes it, and his peers try to determine if his work has merit. And peers SHOULD be critical of his work. If there are questions regarding his methods it's HIS job to prove that all of his methods and conclusions are correct.

The Hockey Stick team completely corrupted this process by selecting as peers members of their own little circle, excluding anyone who may pose any serious questions about their methods, and actively fighting against any critics.

So, let me use your own logic - My analysis of your posts (I'll post a graph if you want) show that you are likely to have a heart attack soon. I am really concern about it. Don't even try to question my scientific methods (Maure conducted a peer review, so I KNOW I'm right) because you know nothing about it. Never mind your doctor's opinion (he must be denier who does not understand my methods), you MUST have a CAT scan, and MRI, and a bypass surgery done NOW. Between me and Mure we reached a consensus, and therefore the science is settled (I'm sure he can provide you with his graphs as an independent proof of how right my hypothesis is).

So, go get that MRI tomorrow - the time for discussion is over. And my methods are irrelevant - after all, can you afford to dismiss my science all together???? we are talking YOUR LIFE!!!!. Goo!!!!!

After all, this is your point on AGW, isn't it????

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

This is one thing Maure and Cav (and myself) agree on. It's simply not possible for non-experts to get to grips with such a complicated subject. There's no one on this website who can really assess much of the science of AGW thoroughly enough for my satisfaction, including myself.

typical academic arrogance. Priceless.

Worked in a university - have seen it so many times.

Don't assume just 'cos you don't lurk in hallowed portals that you can't understand. You don't know anything about the knowledge or capabilities of anyone on this forum!

Einstein was a patent clerk, remember?

And yet again, the pro-GW lobby try to diss the "unbelievers" the "little people", because we could not possibly comprehend....

Its science, its complicated.... leave it to the "experts" to fudge the figures, lie, cheat and deceive. They do it in such a better and more intelligent manner