Interesting read re. Global warming
- Thread starter Moraff
- Start date
Perhaps.
But look on the bright side. In just one week, Prof. Mann has done tremendous damage to the global warming alarmists' cause. Indeed, one of the central figures on the IPCC's team has become a complete laughingstock.
If this keeps up, I suspect the alarmists will soon be pining for the relative serenity of the Climategate days.
Wut?!
Okay, I'll type slowly. After 300 posts in which most of yours have been to condemn AGW data and arguments and almost every one of yours have been in defence of the skeptics, you now basically infer that all the data is to be taken with a grain of salt because they all mercenary, which I know first hand not to always be the case. Many/most do it to find the answers, the money/support allows them to conduct that search.
Here's an objective view.
The scientists whose work is represented by the IPCC are not paid for the results of their work, they are paid to do provable, peer assessed work. The results are what the science says they are and subject to review by the entire community and are supported by 97% of scientists.
The scientists whose 'work' you trumpet neither study climatology nor allow their work to fall under the scrutiny of other scientists. The main website you refer to is run by the man who ran the Kerry swiftboating scandal and is funded by Exxon, who stands to directly lose money were we to take a serious attempt at curtailing climate change.
Even this 'nobel scandal' is a direct parallel to the work done on the Kerry swiftboating, its a made up scandal aimed at character defamation in order to deflect the debate away from the science, where the evidence points only towards one conclusion.
Here's a question for you guys, if a study is peer-reviewed and thousands of scientists stand by it, does that mean its automatically infallible??
Two points of rebuttal:
1) Phil Jones was very clear in his 2010 testimony to the Commons science and technology committee in the U.K. that nothing that even comes close to resembling "peer review" ever took place.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
2) The Nobel committee has unequivocally rejected Mann's claims that he was "awarded" the Nobel Prize. It's a scandal because Mann has falsely listed his credentials, including false assertions in his submission to the Superior Court.
By the way, new research done by Keith Briffa at CRU and others has found no sign of Mike's hockey stick.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/...live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/
Uh-oh. It looks like the Nobel committee and the CRU are part of this vast right-wing conspiracy to undermine Prof. Michael Mann. It may be too late for Mann and his buddies to respond in the preferred way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thgtezzod7k
Actually, Mann must be part of the conspiracy himself, since he's the one that started the fight by launching the lawsuit with the false information.
I'm not sure how to explain Michael Mann's participation in a conspiracy to undermine Michael Mann.
That's not a real question. No one in this thread or in anything I've read has ever claimed infallibility. The fact you actually think that a legitimate question tells me you're an absolute idiot or more likely just jerking around.
Actually, it doesn't matter. Phil Jones confirmed in testimony that none of it was peer reviewed.
Not really as I said that wasn't the most likely, nice selective edit, but you've been doing that a lot in this thread.
According to Jones, the research released by the IPCC (the research that reportedly has the support of 97 per cent or whatever of climate scientists) wasn't peer reviewed.
So if the report have 97% support, did they not review it, or did they just say 'we trust you' and put their hand up in support. None of the research was reviewed? Now a formal review, that may be in question. Do you understand what goes into a formal review? Quick now, google.
Are you saying Phil Jones lied?
That's bizarre. You're saying he lied and said the research wasn't peer reviewed, when it actually was.
Does that make sense to you?
Here's the key paragraph from the Guardian's story in 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
According to Wikipedia, the Guardian is a left-wing newspaper. Certainly, Fred Pearce believes in global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian
Nonetheless, as Lorrie Goldstein noted in a Toronto Sun column, Pearce's view was that when Jones testified that no one asked for the raw data, methodology and computer codes, "the rigour of peer review came crashing down before our eyes."
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2011/01/07/16805171.html
What he was doing was making it sound like 'everyone does it' to make his cooking the books less terrible. Gee he got caught doing somereally bad and now he's trying to drag others down with him. What do you think, of course he was. What I understand, less than 1/3 of the IPCC contributing reports received no formal peer review, but I have no link for this point yet. What I don't know is why. If that's the case, does it do harm to the whole report for reason made quite clear earlier in this thread; 'since 250+ scientists cooked the books, all the information is wrong'.
You have to remember the report is now how old? Since then, there has been more reports to support or even expand on what was reported. Much of it to expand the historical record backwards and strength it. The evidence I've seen first hand over that 5 years certainly has not negatively change my opinion.
